Rightly explained by Heiner with notings from Dean, I wish to add:

Any sanitation practice ought to be a " waste to resource " initiative for benefits of communities. viz :
Save of clean water and re use of once used water, creation at nutrient cycle for closing the loop, safely, energy optimised in these conversions and beyond.
Well wishes and ensuring benefits .

Hi Dean,

I really love your statements in this forum! I belong to a generation which fought against patents on life (gmo) as an act to stop capitalism when it comes down to the basic needs of mankind.
But when an Institut in India is going this way I just step back and remain quiet. There are so many things in the world I don't quite understand and I am simply too "far away".
What I realise is a sort of unfairness when you (and others) share your knowledge to the benefit of all and others don't.

Another topic where I agree 100% is nutrient recycling. This is actually the reason I came here. For a new sanitation system hygiene is important of course. But the save of clean water, the nutrient cycle and the reduced consumption of energy (Haber- Bosch Synthesis) is of equal importance. Not everybody has this in his/her mind.

And last but not least: evidence based science. Your are not getting tired to stress this point. Thanks for that!

Have a nice day in your beautiful country!

heiner

Hi cshankar,

Your ambition is impressive.

You continue to plug your company but yet you have not answered my technical questions and instead have construed my term "second generation" as ambiguous.

So that there is no ambiguity, I will simply repeat that second generation vermifilters are fully aerobic by design. They overcome the problem of progressive anoxia associated with greater media depth, with ventilation cavities. I open sourced an inexpensive and efficient method in this post .

You can choose to ignore my advice, or you could resource your own work into second generation design. You could even publish your findings here as a demonstration of good faith. That good faith could be extended through collaboration and sharing of findings. But based on what I've read from you I can't see that happening.

cheers
Dean

Happy New Year 2020 to All at Susana. Hope this year will see us all making massive progress in deploying ecologically sound systems to resolve problems that affect all of humanity.

There are many calling their vermifilter formulations first generation, second generation, n-th generation. I can't vouch for what it all means. Fundamentally Vision Earthcare has a design formulation, process equipment sizing protocols (which depend on climate, and type of media used), We have created a valuable technology brand called CAMUS-SBT/Soil Bio Technology (that we protect via patents and trademarks) and go to market system that is tried and tested. CSBT meets new Indian National Green Tribunal norms of (COD<50, BOD<10, TSS<10). CAMUS-SBT has been deployed at 120 MLD worth of installations serving 1.2 million people which (I believe) is by far the largest portfolio of Vermifiltration technology globally. Given all this we are looking to scale deployments across many different geographies.

Nothing prevents someone else from promoting their own Vermifiltration technology provided they don't call it SBT/Soil Bio Technology/CAMUS-SBT (which are our registered trademarks), we also claim that use of GeoPhagus worm and associated ecology is a patented novelty for waste water recycling process. We are also in the process of exploring other ecological keystones species in other patents being applied for as of date. We also license specific technologies (patented, trademarked or otherwise) from other entities across the globe for incorporation into our CAMUS/SBT technology brand.

We intend to convince more authorities to adopt CAMUS-SBT vermifiltration for guaranteed results and have graduated from small pilot scale plants to city level plant capable of handling wastes generated by 100,000 or more people. There are reasons for CSBT adoption and it's not just patents (infact patents cause more problems for adoption in Indian procurement systems as they are worried about monopolies). Vision Earthcare's CAMUS-SBT type vermifiltration technology has features that make it very attractive for many municipal, real estate and corporate customers and this is due our demonstrated ability to deliver projects across India as of now and we hope globally very soon.

We are very aware of challenges in deployment. Unlike the west where land is plentiful in India land is scarce and engineering more space efficient designs that produce high quality treatment outcomes are absolutely required especially given the water scarcity that India faces. Since 2002 we have reduced our area requirements from 2sqm/KLD to 0.6 sqm/KLD by constant innovation and invest literally all our profits into product design. That said we are aware that there are many who have key innovations (ideally patented or trademarked) that we happy to commercially utilize and incorporate into the CAMUS-SBT brand.

Dean! Can you share some data (refer my previous post) of power utilization, space utilization, water quality (inlet and outlet: COD, BOD, TSS, TN), replacement of media of your own vermifiltration designs and working plants so we may judge objectively the differences in designs and advantages thereoff. If you have innovations that will be of value to the CAMUS-SBT brand we will be happy to explore licensing options, however we prefer that innovations are defensible via patents and trademarks. It takes a lot of time to develop trust in a system and very little time for fly by night operators to destroy technology image by improper implementations that fail (as we have found to our own detriment)

Here is a recent article about us here.

www.thebetterindia.com/210034/iit-bombay...tartup-india-ang136/

List of Projects being implemented or already commissioned as of date is below
drive.google.com/open?id=17BGDwMQA3zKbJ_2XtnZraZSKs8GA1gP0

Hi cshankar,
Actually, I'd submit that such a monopoly is duplicitous because SBT have not provided any novel process in their patent. This was as obvious back in 2000 as it is today. You have not yet described anything novel about it beyond special proprietary ingredients whose novelty cannot be objectively evaluated. Could I suggest that you are not trying to enforce it because you have no basis for this?

Perforated pipes have been used for a long time in first generation vermifilters. These pipes are designed to get air into the sub-floor space (or in the case of SBT the "under drain" rock layer), to provide ventilation under the media for a reasonably aerobic substrate:


This does not give depth of aeration right into the media. The deeper the media, the smaller the aerobic zone becomes as a proportion of the media volume. 

With vertical perforated pipes it is only the perforations themselves that provide surface area. Such ventilation pipes would need to be placed 50cm apart through the media for a fully aerobic and deep media. This isn't done because it isn't cost effective... treatment efficiency is the tradeoff. In contrast, second generation vermifilters are fully aerobic by design. That said, the SBT substrate with its high proportion of anaerobic zones would remove nitrogen via anaerobic ammonium oxidation, but a greater surface area (and aerobic media volume) would be required to remove BOD. I repeat, removal of nitrogen should not be the aim of vermifiltration - cost-effective removal of oxygen demand should be.

Cshankar, did your trials with deep beds fail because of poor experimental design? Excessive velocity surely only arises because surface area is insufficient for the influent volume. Surely depth of media should be properly matched to total media volume and hydraulic loading rate, with the response variable being an optimised treatment level? Of course media porosity (and hydraulic retention time/recirculation frequency) are also important explanatory variables to get right, but I don't understand how your trials could get depth of media so wrong, such that hydraulic velocity caused failure? Is this trial published?

If bark and woody material (woodchips, sawdust etc) are pre-composted, the material does not break down further in the reactor, because decomposition has already taken place. Fresh sawdust, woodchips or bark are used because they are cheap, but it is accepted that these will need regular topping up over the short term, which is just a maintenance issue. Media replacement is certainly not necessary. As the media stabilises into humus, top ups become less frequent and once the substrate is humus-based it is very stable. The very best media is the product of vermifiltration itself - the humus that worms produce.

These materials are all organic for a reason and only one media form is required without layering. Organic media offers optimised porosity and the best surface area... and as worms add more humus as castings, the media remains optimised and 100% organic. Because primary (solid waste) vermidigesters generate larger quantities of humus, the excess is a valuable product for use as media in secondary reactors. Human solid waste makes the very best media of all - worm humus. Unfortunately it appears that SBT use an anaerobic conventional treatment process for dealing with solids (as per the videos above), so only generate sludge, which is useless as media.

Sorry, but I don't buy claims are that your proprietary SBT media is superior. Because SBT uses inorganic media (soil, granular inorganic media, sand, gravel layers and special ground rock additives), porosity is optimised by design (particle size and layering). However, as organic matter (castings/humus) builds up, HRT increases. This is because inorganic particles rely on inter-particle spaces, which get filled with organic material. The inorganic material then impedes flow because it is impermeable. The media becomes oxygen-limited and the worms hang out near the surface, forfeiting useful capacity. Once inorganic particle spaces are all filled up with vermi-humus, inevitably the inorganic media will impede flow, reduce surface area, reduce available oxygen and increase hydraulic retention time. Sure, the system might work for some time with a reducing hydraulic loading rate, but eventually the media will need replacing.

Although the future of the technology itself is assured, unless I can be convinced otherwise, my opinion remains that the SBT vermifilter is first generation outdated technology. Cshankar, beware that while you cling to methods developed 20 years ago, the art itself continues to move forward and you risk being left behind.
cheers
Dean

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