Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T04:27:24.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wastewater treatment in Antarctica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2008

M. A. Connor
M. A. Connor*
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the exploration of Antarctica began, procedures for dealing with human wastes have changed considerably. The establishment of research stations made it necessary to provide for sewage disposal. However, the introduction of advanced wastewater treatment processes has been driven largely by an intensifying concern to protect the Antarctic environment. A key step was the adoption by Antarctic Treaty nations of the so-called Madrid Protocol, in which minimum standards for sewage treatment and disposal are prescribed. The provisions of this protocol are not particularly onerous and some countries have elected to go beyond them, and to treat Antarctic research station wastewater as they would at home. Transferring treatment technologies to Antarctica is not simple because the remoteness, isolation, weather and other local conditions impose a variety of unusual constraints on plant design. The evolution of advanced treatment plant designs is examined. Most countries have opted for biofilm-based processes, with Rotating Biological Contactors (RBC) favoured initially while more recently contact aeration systems have been preferred. Sludges are now generally repatriated, with a diversity of sludge dewatering techniques being used. The evolution of treatment process designs is expected to continue, with growing use, especially at inland stations, of sophisticated processes such as membrane technologies and thermally efficient evaporative techniques.

Type
Research Article
Information
Polar Record , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 165 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahammer, H., Matz, T., El Naggar, S., and Gernandt, H.. 2000. Biological sewage plants at ‘Neumayer’ and the Argentinian Base ‘Jubany’ Antarctica. In: Shirashi, K. (editor). Proceedings of 9th SCALOP Symposium, Tokyo, 12 July 2000. Tokyo: National Institute of Polar Research: 203–206.Google Scholar
Alva, V. 2000. Improvement of the sewage treatment at the Spanish Antarctic Station Juan Carlos I. In: Shirashi, K. (editor). Proceedings of 9th SCALOP Symposium, Tokyo, 12 July 2000. Tokyo: National Institute of Polar Research: 245.Google Scholar
Australian Antarctic Division. 2005. Annex III (to the Madrid Protocol): Waste disposal and waste management. Kingston, Tasmania: Australian Antarctic Division. URL: http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=2479 (accessed 7 October 2005).Google Scholar
Bleasel, J.E., Bonner, W.N., Bolin, B., and Knox, G.A.. 1989. Waste disposal in the Antarctic. Kingston, Tasmania: Australian Antarctic Division (Report of the SCAR panel of experts on waste disposal).Google Scholar
CONMAP (Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programmes). 2002. COMNAP Report to XXV ATCM, Warsaw, Poland, 10–20 September 2002.Google Scholar
Delille, D., and Delille, E.. 2000. Distribution of enteric bacteria in Antarctic seawater surrounding the Dumont d'Urville permanent station (Adélie Land). Marine Pollution Bulletin 40 (10): 869–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Division of Polar Programs. 1984. U. S. Antarctic Program: final environmental impact statement. Washington DC: National Science Foundation (Report no. NSF 84–81).Google Scholar
Flynn, M.T., Bubenheim, D.L., Straight, C.L., and Belisle, W.. 1994. The controlled ecological life support system Antarctic analog project: analysis of wastewater from the South Pole Station, Antarctica. Vol. 1. Moffett Field, California: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA Technical Memorandum 108836).Google Scholar
Ghosh, T.K., Muley, R.D., Ghode, R., and Ramteke, D.S.. 1997. Thirteenth Indian expedition to Antarctica, scientific report. New Delhi: Department of Ocean Development (Technical Publication No. 11): 301–311.Google Scholar
Headland, R. 1989. Chronological list of Antarctic expeditions and related historical events. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heaton, K., and Paterson, C.. 2003. Design of a wastewater treatment plant for Davis Base, Antarctica. Water June: 78–82.Google Scholar
Howington, J.P., McFeters, G.A., Jones, W.L., and Smith, J.J.. 1994. The effect of low temperature on BOD in Antarctic seawater. Water Research 28 (12): 2585–2587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, K.A. 2004. Reducing sewage pollution in the Antarctic marine environment using a sewage treatment plant. Marine Pollution Bulletin 49: 850–853.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, K.A., and Blenkharn, N.. 2003. A simple method to reduce discharge of sewage microorganisms from an Antarctic research station. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46: 353–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerry, E. 2002. Managing human waste in the Antarctic. Australian Antarctic Magazine 3. URL: http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=2479 (accessed 18 October 2005).Google Scholar
Lori, A., Meneghello, S., Scarano, G., and Voli, D.. 1992. Study of a new wastewater treatment plant for the Italian Antarctic Station. In: Melander, O., and Fontana, L.R. (editors). Proceedings of the fifth symposium on Antarctic logistics and operations, San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina, 8–19 June 1992. Buenos Aires: Direccion Nacional del Antartico: 253–257.Google Scholar
Lori, A., Ponzo, U., Indulti, M., and Stefanoni, M.. 1996. A new wastewater treatment plant installed at the Italian Antarctic Station of Terra Nova Bay. In: Hall, J. (editor). Proceedings of the seventh symposium on Antarctic logistics and operations, Cambridge, U.K., 6–7 August 1996. Cambridge: British Antarctic Survey: 263–278.Google Scholar
Martel, C.J. 2001. Design of freezing bed for sludge dewatering at McMurdo, Antarctica. Dartmouth, New Hampshire: US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (Technical report ERDC/CRREL TR-01-3).Google Scholar
McFeters, G.A., Barry, J.P., and Howington, J.P.. 1993. Distribution of enteric bacteria in Antarctic seawater surrounding a sewage outfall. Water Research 27 (4): 645–650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zealand, New. 2002. A new wastewater treatment system for New Zealand's Scott Base – rationale, selection process and outcome. Fifth meeting of the Committee for Environmental Protection, Warsaw, Poland, 10–16 September 2002. (Information paper IP32). URL: http://www.cep.aq/MediaLibrary/asset/MediaItems/ml-376384340393519_IP032e.pdf (accessed 28th October 2005).Google Scholar
Parker, L.V. and Martel, C.J.. 2002. Long-term survival of enteric microorganisms in frozen wastewater. Dartmouth, New Hampshire: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (Technical report ERDC/CRREL TR-02-16).Google Scholar
SCAR and CONMAP (Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research and Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programmes). 2000. Wildlife Diseases. Working paper submitted to the third meeting of the Committee for Environmental Protection, The Hague, Netherlands, 11–15 September 2000. URL: http://www.scar.org/treaty/cep/cepiiipapers/diseases.html (accessed 28th October 2005).Google Scholar
Stewart, D., Brookman, P., and Rodionov, A.. 2003. The new wastewater treatment system at Scott Base, Antarctica. URL: http://www.mwhglobal.co.nz/Files/NZWWA-03-DS.pdf (accessed 12 July 2005).Google Scholar
Umezawa, A., Sakamoto, M., Yanagiya, K., Yoshida, J., and Kato, Y.. 2000. Sewage treatment at Syowa Station. In: Shiraishi, K. (editor). Proceedings of 9th SCALOP Symposium, Tokyo, 12 July 2000. Tokyo: National Institute of Polar Research: 195–201.Google Scholar