MODERN WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR NORTHERN REGIONS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RUSSIAN, CHINESE AND INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE

ABSTRACT

The article provides an overview and comparative analysis of modern wastewater treatment technologies applicable in the Far North. Russian regulatory requirements and design features for the Arctic zone are considered. Using the example of design solutions developed for Anadyr (Chukotka Autonomous Okrug) with the participation of STE-GROUP LLC and the Heilongjiang Academy of Cold Area Building Research, the following technologies are detailed: EBIS process, magnetic coagulation, fabric filters, UV disinfection, and sludge treatment. A comparison of Russian, Chinese and international approaches (Scandinavia, Canada, Alaska, Greenland) at the design level is carried out, their advantages and limitations are identified. Recommendations are proposed for choosing optimal technologies for northern regions, considering low temperatures, permafrost, and remoteness.

АННОТАЦИЯ

В статье выполнен обзор и сравнительный анализ современных технологий очистки сточных вод, применимых в условиях Крайнего Севера. Рассмотрены российские нормативные требования и особенности проектирования для арктической зоны. На примере проектных решений, разработанных для г. Анадырь (Чукотский АО) при участии ООО «СТЭ-ГРУПП» и Хэйлунцзянской академии строительства в холодных регионах, детально разобраны технологии: процесс EBIS, магнитная коагуляция, тканевые фильтры, УФ-обеззараживание, обработка осадка. Проведено сравнение российских, китайских и международных подходов (Скандинавия, Канада, Аляска, Гренландия) на уровне проектных решений, выявлены их преимущества и ограничения. Предложены рекомендации по выбору оптимальных технологий для северных регионов с учётом низких температур, вечной мерзлоты и удалённости.

Keywords: Wastewater treatment, Far North, permafrost, design solutions, EBIS, magnetic coagulation, UV disinfection, Russia, China, international experience.

Ключевые слова: Очистка сточных вод, Крайний Север, вечная мерзлота, проектные решения, EBIS, магнитная коагуляция, УФ-обеззараживание, Россия, Китай, международный опыт.

INTRODUCTION

Development of the Arctic and Far North regions requires the creation of modern infrastructure, including wastewater disposal and treatment systems. The specific characteristics of northern territories – low temperatures (down to –50°C), presence of permafrost, remoteness from industrial centers, lack of year-round transport accessibility – impose special requirements on treatment technologies [1, 2].

According to a pan-Arctic review, only 19% of wastewater in the Arctic region undergoes secondary or more advanced treatment, compared to 86% across Europe and North America. Moreover, 14 to 20% of Arctic wastewater is discharged without any treatment [3]. This is due both to harsh climatic conditions and the lack of technologies adapted to operate at low temperatures.

Traditional solutions applied in temperate climates often prove ineffective or economically unfeasible in Arctic conditions. High heat losses, risk of equipment freezing, difficulty in delivering reagents and removing sludge require the search for alternative approaches [4].

In recent years, China has been actively developing wastewater treatment technologies adapted to cold climates (northern provinces, Tibet, Heilongjiang). Promising developments by Chinese scientists are of significant interest to Russian specialists, as they can potentially be applied in Far North regions [5]. Simultaneously, Scandinavia, Canada and Alaska have accumulated considerable experience in operating treatment facilities in Arctic and subarctic conditions.

Russian regulations set strict requirements for treatment quality (SP 32.13330.2018, SanPiN 2.1.5.980-00) but do not contain direct recommendations for technology selection in the Arctic. China and other countries have significant experience in designing treatment facilities for cold regions, but this experience is little known in Russia. Comparative studies analyzing Russian, Chinese and international approaches at the design level are lacking.

Objective – to perform a comparative analysis of Russian, Chinese and international design approaches to wastewater treatment in cold climates and propose recommendations for northern regions.

The research tasks include:

1. Analyze Russian regulatory requirements and standard solutions.
2. Study Chinese design solutions using Anadyr as a case study.
3. Analyze international experience (Scandinavia, Canada, Alaska, Greenland).
4. Compare technological approaches by key criteria.
5. Identify advantages and limitations of each approach.
6. Formulate recommendations for design solutions development.

Scientific novelty lies in the systematization and comparison of Russian, Chinese and international design approaches to wastewater treatment in the Arctic, as well as in developing technology selection criteria at the pre-design stage considering global experience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Research object – design solutions for wastewater treatment facilities with capacity of 4500 m³/day, developed for Anadyr (Chukotka Autonomous Okrug) with participation of STE-GROUP LLC (Russia) and the Heilongjiang Academy of Cold Area Building Research (China). The project is at the feasibility study stage, 2024.

Data sources:

• Russian regulatory documents [1, 2, 6];
• Chinese design materials;
• International publications [3, 5, 7–14].

Methods: comparative and criteria analysis (energy efficiency, compactness, reliability, cold adaptation).

RESULTS

Russian approach

Treatment quality requirements (Class A): COD – 50 mg/L, BOD5 – 10 mg/L, suspended solids – 10 mg/L, ammonium nitrogen – 5 mg/L, phosphates – 0.5 mg/L [6]. Standard solutions: aeration tanks (A²/O, MBBR), post-treatment on filters, disinfection with sodium hypochlorite, mechanical sludge dewatering.

Chinese approach (Anadyr project)

Technological scheme: screens → grit chamber → equalization tank → EBIS → magnetic coagulation → fabric filter → UV disinfection → discharge.

EBIS – high-concentration activated sludge (6–8 g/L), low oxygen content (0.5 mg/L). Efficiency at 6–10°C: organic removal ≥85%, nitrogen removal up to 70%, energy consumption 20–35% lower, sludge yield 20–40% less [5, 7, 8].

Magnetic coagulation – sedimentation rate 5–10 times higher than traditional settlers, phosphorus removal down to 0.5 mg/L [9].

UV disinfection – reagent-free, safe for remote facilities.

Sludge treatment – screw press (80%) + plate-and-frame filter (60% dryness), minimizing disposal volume.

International experience in cold climate wastewater treatment

Canada (BEAST): bioelectrochemical anaerobic technology, 5–23°C, BOD5 removal 90–97% (<7 mg/L), energy consumption 0.6 kWh/kg COD, positive energy balance from biomethane production. Pilot facilities in Nunavut and Greenland [10, 11, 14].

Permeable reactive barriers (PRB): arsenic and uranium removal at 5°C [12].

Greenland: UV + peracetic acid, complete E. coli inactivation at 2.1 kWh/m³ [11].

Alaska: closed peroxone cycle, 85% heat retention, residual COD 0.7 mg/L [11].

Scandinavia: direct membrane filtration, wetland systems [13].

Comparative analysis of technological approaches

Table 1 presents a comparison of Russian, Chinese and international technological solutions.

Table 1.

Comparison of technological solutions

Advantages and limitations

The comparative analysis reveals distinct strengths and weaknesses for each technological approach when considered for Arctic applications.

Chinese design solutions offer several significant advantages for Arctic conditions. Their primary strength lies in compactness, as placing all facilities within a single building substantially reduces heated volume and associated energy losses [7]. The EBIS process achieves energy efficiency through reduced aeration requirements, with documented energy savings of 20–35% compared to conventional activated sludge systems [7]. This technology has demonstrated reliable performance at temperatures as low as 6–10°C, making it particularly suitable for cold regions [8]. Additionally, Chinese solutions incorporate full automation, which minimizes on-site personnel requirements—a critical consideration for remote Arctic settlements. The reagent-free UV disinfection eliminates the need to transport hazardous chemicals, while the two-stage sludge dewatering system (achieving 60% dryness) significantly reduces the frequency of sludge disposal trips, directly addressing northern logistics challenges. However, these solutions face limitations including dependence on imported magnetic powder for coagulation and the lack of long-term operational history specifically in Russian Arctic conditions, which creates uncertainty regarding long-term performance and maintenance requirements.

North American approaches offer fundamentally different advantages centered on energy self-sufficiency. The BEAST technology achieves a positive energy balance through biomethane production, meaning facilities can generate rather than consume energy [11, 14]. This characteristic is particularly valuable for off-grid Arctic communities where energy costs are exceptionally high. Passive systems such as permeable reactive barriers (PRB) offer minimal operating costs after installation, requiring no energy input for contaminant removal [12]. Closed water cycles developed in Alaska achieve remarkable 85% heat retention, addressing the dual challenges of water conservation and energy efficiency [11]. The limitations of North American approaches include higher system complexity for bioelectrochemical technologies, which may challenge local maintenance capabilities. Furthermore, their technology readiness level for Russian regulatory conditions remains unproven, requiring significant adaptation work before implementation.

Scandinavian solutions demonstrate strengths in ecological integration and cost-effectiveness. The use of constructed wetland systems and local filtration materials reduces both capital and operational costs, while providing effective treatment through natural processes [13]. Combined disinfection methods (UV with peracetic acid) ensure reliable pathogen inactivation while minimizing chemical consumption [11]. However, these approaches require larger land areas than compact engineered systems, which may be problematic in permafrost conditions where ground disturbance carries environmental risks. Additionally, wetland systems face potential freezing challenges during extreme cold events, potentially compromising treatment performance during the most severe winter conditions.

When comparing across all three approaches, several patterns emerge. Chinese solutions prioritize engineered reliability and compactness, making them suitable for medium-sized settlements with existing infrastructure. North American innovations focus on energy independence and passive operation, ideal for remote communities with limited energy access. Scandinavian methods emphasize natural processes and low operational costs, appropriate for small settlements with available land. The choice between these approaches must therefore consider settlement size, energy infrastructure, logistics capacity, and local environmental conditions—factors that will be discussed further in the following section.

DISCUSSION

Comparative analysis of biological treatment methods

The analysis reveals fundamental differences between the three approaches. Chinese EBIS technology operates with high sludge concentrations (6–8 g/L) and low dissolved oxygen (0.5 mg/L), reducing energy consumption by 20–35% compared to conventional aeration tanks [7]. This is particularly advantageous for Arctic conditions where energy costs are high and heat preservation is critical. The compact design minimizes heat loss, with reactor temperatures remaining 1–2°C higher than in traditional systems [8].

Canadian BEAST technology offers a fundamentally different paradigm – bioelectrochemical anaerobic treatment that generates biomethane, achieving a positive energy balance [10, 14]. While this technology requires more complex equipment, it could be transformative for larger Arctic settlements with sufficient wastewater volumes. The ability to produce energy rather than consume it addresses the fundamental challenge of high energy costs in remote regions. The energy-positive nature of BEAST makes it particularly attractive for off-grid communities, as it can potentially eliminate or significantly reduce external energy requirements for wastewater treatment [10].

Scandinavian approaches favor integration with natural systems, such as wetland treatment and membrane filtration [13]. These solutions offer lower operational costs but may require larger land areas, which could be limiting in permafrost conditions where ground disturbance is problematic.

The choice between these approaches depends on settlement size: EBIS appears optimal for medium-sized communities (equivalent to Anadyr's 4500 m³/day), BEAST for larger settlements with energy deficits, and wetland systems for small villages with available land.

Evaluation of advanced treatment technologies

Magnetic coagulation, proposed in the Anadyr project, demonstrates significant advantages for Arctic applications. The sedimentation rate, 5–10 times higher than that of traditional settlers, allows for more compact facility design, directly reducing heated volumes [9]. Phosphorus removal down to 0.5 mg/L meets stringent Russian Class A requirements [6]. However, dependence on imported magnetic powder creates logistical vulnerability—a critical consideration for regions dependent on northern delivery. Although magnetic coagulation is highly effective, reagent supply chains must be secured for remote applications, which requires the development of reliable logistics schemes.

Permeable reactive barriers (PRB), tested in Canada at 5°C, offer a passive alternative for specific contaminants like arsenic and uranium [12]. Desmau et al. demonstrated that PRB systems remain effective at low temperatures, though nitrate removal required carbon source addition [12]. While PRB systems require no energy input after installation, their application is limited to groundwater treatment and specific pollutant profiles, making them complementary rather than alternative to mainstream wastewater treatment.

Disinfection approaches for remote Arctic settlements

UV disinfection, proposed for Anadyr, eliminates the need for hazardous chemical transport – a significant advantage given the risks and costs of delivering chlorine or hypochlorite to Arctic communities [5]. Greenland's experience with UV combined with peracetic acid demonstrates that complete pathogen inactivation is achievable even in extreme cold [11]. Jensen et al. report that this combination achieves reliable disinfection while minimizing chemical consumption [3].

Alaska's closed peroxone cycle with 85% heat retention represents an innovative approach to the twin challenges of disinfection and energy conservation [11]. Residual COD of 0.7 mg/L far exceeds standard requirements, suggesting potential for water reuse applications. Kofman notes that heat recovery from treated water can significantly reduce overall energy demand in Arctic communities [11].

Sludge management in cold climates

The two-stage dewatering system proposed for Anadyr directly addresses the logistics challenge of sludge disposal in northern delivery conditions. Reducing sludge volume by approximately 50% compared to conventional dewatering (achieving 60% dryness versus typical 80% moisture) halves the number of transport trips required. This is particularly critical given the high costs of northern delivery.

Canadian biomethane production from sludge offers an additional benefit – energy recovery that can offset facility power requirements [14]. The BEAST project demonstrates that anaerobic treatment combined with bioelectrochemical processes can achieve positive energy balance while treating wastewater to high standards [10].

Implications for the Russian Arctic

The comparative analysis suggests that no single technology universally solves Arctic wastewater challenges. Instead, a tiered implementation strategy is proposed:

For small settlements (<1000 m³/day): Passive or semi-passive systems (constructed wetlands, PRB where applicable) combined with compact packaged UV disinfection units. These minimize operational requirements and eliminate chemical logistics. Scandinavian experience with wetland systems in cold climates provides valuable design guidance [13].

For medium settlements (1000–10,000 m³/day): EBIS technology with magnetic coagulation and two-stage sludge dewatering, as proposed for Anadyr. This balances energy efficiency, compactness, and operational simplicity. Chinese experience in Heilongjiang Province, where winter temperatures reach –35°C, confirms the viability of this approach [7, 8].

For large settlements (>10,000 m³/day): Bioelectrochemical systems (BEAST) with energy recovery, combined with closed-loop water reuse where feasible. The higher complexity is justified by economies of scale and energy benefits. Canadian pilot projects in Nunavut and Greenland provide proof-of-concept for Arctic application [14].

This tiered approach requires adaptation to Russian regulatory frameworks, particularly Class A effluent standards [6]. Priority actions include:

1. Pilot validation of EBIS technology at a representative Russian Arctic location
2. Regulatory harmonization for magnetic coagulation and UV disinfection
3. Technology transfer agreements for BEAST implementation
4. Development of local operational capacity through training programs

Considering that only 19% of Arctic wastewater currently receives adequate treatment [3], systematic implementation of these technologies could dramatically improve environmental conditions across the region.

CONCLUSION

1. Wastewater treatment in the Arctic requires special solutions considering climate, permafrost and logistics. Only 19% of Arctic wastewater undergoes secondary treatment, representing a significant environmental challenge [3].
2. Russian regulations set high quality requirements (Class A: COD ≤50 mg/L, BOD5 ≤10 mg/L, phosphates ≤0.5 mg/L) but lack specific recommendations for technology selection in Arctic conditions [6].
3. Chinese solutions developed for Anadyr (EBIS, magnetic coagulation, UV disinfection) demonstrate effectiveness at 6–10°C, with 20–35% lower energy consumption, 40% less sludge production, and compact design reducing heated volumes [5, 7, 8].
4. International experience offers valuable alternatives:
   • Canadian BEAST technology achieves positive energy balance through biomethane production [10, 14]
   • Alaskan closed cycles retain 85% of heat energy while achieving exceptional effluent quality [11]
   • Scandinavian wetland systems provide low-cost solutions for small settlements [13]
5. The most promising technologies for the Russian Arctic include: EBIS for medium settlements, magnetic coagulation for phosphorus removal, UV disinfection for reagent-free operation, two-stage sludge dewatering for logistics optimization, and bioelectrochemical systems for energy-positive treatment in larger communities.
6. A tiered implementation strategy is proposed:
   • Small settlements (<1000 m³/day): passive systems + UV
   • Medium settlements (1000–10,000 m³/day): EBIS + magnetic coagulation + two-stage dewatering
   • Large settlements (>10,000 m³/day): bioelectrochemical systems with energy recovery
7. Successful implementation requires adaptation to Russian regulations, pilot validation, technology transfer, and capacity building. Joint international projects represent the optimal path forward.

Scientific novelty consists in the systematization of Russian, Chinese and international approaches to wastewater treatment in the Arctic, the development of technology selection criteria at the pre-design stage, and the proposal of a tiered implementation strategy tailored to settlement size.

References:

1. SP 32.13330.2018. Sewerage. External networks and structures.
2. SanPiN 2.1.5.980-00. Hygienic requirements for surface water protection.
3. Jensen P.E. et al. The status of domestic wastewater treatment in the Arctic // Environmental Science: Advances. – 2025. – Vol. 4. – P. 1373–1402.
4. Gogina E.S., Gvozdev P.A. // Water Supply and Sanitary Engineering. – 2021. – No. 8. – P. 45–52.
5. Wang J., Chen X. // Journal of Water Process Engineering. – 2023. – Vol. 52. – 103112.
6. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 644 dated 29.07.2013.
7. EBIS micro-oxygen circulating flow wastewater treatment system technology case // E20 Environmental Industry Circle. – 2021.
8. Application of EBIS technology to solve water pollution problems in cold regions of Northeast China // E20 Environmental Industry Circle. – 2021.
9. Liu Y., Zhang Q. // Environmental Science and Pollution Research. – 2022. – Vol. 29. – P. 15678–15695.
10. Tartakovsky B. et al. // Environmental Science and Pollution Research. – 2017. – Vol. 25. – P. 32844–32850.
11. Kofman V.Ya. // Water Supply and Sanitary Engineering. – 2019. – No. 7. – P. 56–62.
12. Desmau M. et al. // Chemosphere. – 2025. – Vol. 384. – 144499.
13. ArcticSewlutions: Sewage management in cold and sparsely populated regions. – University of Oulu, 2024.
14. Project BEAST: BioElectrochemical Anaerobic Sewage Treatment. – NRC Canada, 2023.