Tell us what’s happening to your water and we’ll tell you where to start
Five questions, in your own words. At the end you get a recommendation and a draft study request, which you send only if you want. You can answer “I don’t know” to anything you are unsure of.
- 1 · What’s happening
- 2 · Where it comes from
- 3 · What it’s for
- 4 · Figures
- 5 · Recommendation
- 6 · Request
Your water, in your own words
Two questions: what water it is, and what’s happening to it. Tick everything that applies; if nothing specific is wrong, continue.
First, which water are we talking about?
What’s happening to the water?
Where does the water come from?
What do you need it for?
A few figures, if you have them
Everything is optional. The more we know, the tighter the recommendation.
This recommendation is based on general rules and on what you have told us; it is not a design or an offer. The water study and, where appropriate, the test on your sample, fix in writing what is possible.
Your request, already drafted
We have poured the summary into the message. Add your contact details and send: we reply in 24–48 working hours. No obligation.
Industrial wastewater simulator: estimated reduction with a T1 module
The water does not pass the unit once: it recirculates, and each pass removes part of what is left. Enter your flow rate and lab analysis (or leave the example values) and you will see what a T1 module would do alone, what a conventional WWTP would do, and what the two do together. The rules are published below, under “How this is calculated”.
Indicative estimate
What each bar means. “Inlet” is your water. “Conventional WWTP/EDAR” is what a conventional plant sized for ordinary urban load would do. “T1 only · no WWTP/EDAR” is the machine alone. “WWTP/EDAR + T1” is the T1 working on what the existing treatment leaves, which is the usual upgrade layout. The ✓/✕ marks compare the estimated outlet with the limit shown: this is guidance, not certified compliance. If you discharge to a municipal sewer, you can find the WWTP that receives your municipality’s water on the map of WWTPs in Spain.
How this is calculated · what the estimate rests on
The simulator does not apply a single percentage. That is the first thing to know, because it is what almost everyone does and it is where the disappointments come from: the same unit does not perform the same on one water as on another, and saying “it cuts 80%” without looking at the water means nothing.
Behind it is our own model that chains several rules. We do not publish them in detail — they are part of the know-how of the system — but we do publish what they take into account, which is what lets you judge whether the number makes sense for your case.
What the result depends on
- Which contaminant it is. Each one is removed by a different route and goes as far as that route goes. Phosphorus precipitates very well; nitrogen depends on the form it arrives in; ammonium, simply, is not removed this way. A ceiling per parameter, not one for everything.
- How much load it carries. The higher the inlet concentration, the less each pass removes in proportion. That is the most consistent observation from our pilots.
- How difficult the water is. The COD to BOD₅ ratio says what share of the load is biodegradable and what share is refractory; high nitrogen and pH out of range penalise. Here is the real advantage of the system: difficult water punishes a biological treatment much harder than an electrochemical one, because ours does not need bacteria to be able to eat the matter. The simulator applies that penalty to both sides, not only to the competitor.
- How many passes the water makes. The water does not pass once: it recirculates, and each pass removes part of what was still left. With few passes you do not reach the ceiling even if the unit is capable.
- How many modules there are. More units do not only give more flow: they give more electrode area and more charge dose per cubic metre, and beyond a certain number they can be placed in series. That raises the ceiling, not only the capacity.
Where the numbers come from
From our own tests with inlet and outlet measured on the same water, not from a catalogue or from the literature. When a value is not backed by one of our tests but by the chemistry of the process, we say so in the note for that parameter: we would rather you knew now than later.
And a decision worth explaining, because it goes against commercial instinct: the values you see include a safety margin below what we have measured. In our tests the system did more than this simulator promises. We would rather the real installation surprise you upwards.
Where the calculation stops
Below a certain concentration the simulator stops going down. That is not a limit of the unit: it is that the laboratory can no longer tell the difference, and we do not commit to what cannot be measured.
The bar “WWTP (EDAR) + T1” does not add performances: it chains them. The T1 works on what the treatment you already have leaves. That is the logic of retrofit —intensify without expanding— and it is the layout in which the system gives its best cost/result ratio.
What “conventional WWTP/EDAR” means
A conventional WWTP sized for ordinary urban load that is receiving more than it was designed to treat. That is why its performance falls as the inlet rises. A new plant sized for that load would do better; we compare against what is installed, which is the real retrofit case.
Precondition
All performance figures assume pretreatment already in place: coarse screening, grit removal and grease and floatables separation. Without that no performance is demandable — sand erodes the electrodes and free grease cuts current transfer.
Where it does not go, in our own words
- Dissolved salts and conductivity. The system does not desalinate.
- Sludge still has to be managed. What is taken out of the water does not vanish.
The discharge limits shown as a reference (25 mg/L BOD₅ · 125 mg/L COD · 15 mg/L N · 2 mg/L P) are indicative. The limit that applies to each case is the one in your discharge permit, which can be substantially tighter.
Want the number tightened for your water? Send us the lab analysis. We do the detailed calculation, with your case in front of us, and we walk you through it.
Size of the existing WWTP. The “conventional WWTP/EDAR” bar is weighted by the size of the plant used for comparison: small WWTPs have fewer polishing stages. According to Spain’s official 2023 report to the EU (Waterbase-UWWTD), 40 % of plants under 2,000 p.e. have tertiary treatment and 38 % declare nitrogen removal, against 81 % and 58–71 % of those over 50,000; for phosphorus, 24 % against 60 %. The official return starts at 2,000 p.e., so the smaller plants listed are few and do not stand for all that exist. The simulator weights a little for that: if you do not touch the slider, size is estimated from the flow rate (a conventional plant sized for that flow, with an allowance of 185 L per population equivalent per day, the median measured at the Spanish plants that publish their flow; on the map of Europe, each country’s own); if you arrive from the map, from the p.e. of your WWTP. It is an indicative weighting on equipment, not a measure of any particular plant’s performance, and least of all of yours.
WWTPs in Spain: find yours and send it to the simulator
The 2,357 urban WWTPs that Spain reports to the European Union. Click one on the map: the card shows its capacity, its load and its treatment, and a button sends it to the simulator with the indicative flow and a typical urban inlet, to see what a T1 module would add. If you entered your municipality in the configurator, the “See it on the map” link selects it here.
Source: European Environment Agency · Waterbase-UWWTD 2023. This section only shows what was reported; it does not assess any plant. Method, definitions and file hash: WWTP map page.
drag: pan
click: open card