Presentation
Aquafit4Use end-congress
End-congress in Brugge, 8th/9th of May 2012
8th of May 2012
Retort for refining of acetic acid 1884
1
Typical fresh water use
on the Perstorp Industrial Estate
El. distribution
Waste gas tr.
Electricity
Damms
Steam
WTP
WWTP
Issues to consider when
planning water reuse
Target values for “high” and “low” water quality for reuse
Parameter
pH
conductivity
"low"
"high"
Effluent
Cooling Water
Process Water
Newater
RO-permeate
7,9
6,5-9,0
7,6
7,0-8,5
7,1
3800
(< 200)
170
< 250
5,3
µS/cm
5,5
mg/l
alkalinity (M) (CaCO3)
alkalinity (HCO3-)
20-100
hardness (CaCO3)
< 30
(< 10)
0,1
32
(< 60)
0,21
2,59
< 1000
turbidity
2,1
nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N)
Possible effects on product quality
Possible effects on equipment & piping
Possiple effects on working environment
< 30
TDS
ammonia nitrogen (NH4-N)
color, 405 nm
0,16
<3
COD(Cr)
198
TOC
60
total nitrogen
total phosphorous
chloride (Cl-)
0,34
< 0,5
mg/l
< 0,01
mg/l
< 0,1
mg/l
< 180
0,06
mg/l
<5
< 0,1
NTU
9
28
BOD7
---
mg/l
21
270
unit
<5
mg Pt/l
mg/l
mg/l
< 10
1,0-2,0
<2
mg/l
22
mg/l
0,12
mg/l
800
< 60 (90)
33
12
mg/l
sulphate (SO42-)
960
240
10
<5
1,4
mg/l
Ca
12,5
< 24
8,4
< 30
< 30
< 0,2
Fe
0,046
< 0,6
0,061
< 0,05
< 0,02
mg/l
K
7,95
1,5
<1
mg/l
Mg
3,32
2,2
< 0,5
mg/l
Na
1110
20
12
mg/l
Al
0,097
0,6
< 0,1
< 0,01
µg/l
Mn
0,018
< 0,02
0,02
< 0,05
< 0,01
µg/l
2008-11-01
make-up, 5 *conc
2008-10-29
Singapore
2009-12-22
< 20
mg/l
2
Background to examples
Central vs local reuse options
If central can produce good enough water
quality, more capacity from one installation
(more infrastructure needed)
Local can be more specific to reach a
certain water quality and might be combined
with product recovery (less need for new
infrastructure)
If possible, work on both ends !
Overview AquaFit WP 5.2.2, technologies
A
Cooling tower
MBR1
MBR2
MBR3
Overview AquaFit WP 5.2.3, technologies
Plant B
C
Denutritor
RO
AOP
Denutritor
RO
Denutritor
RO
AOP
Denutritor
RO
+ AOP retentate
Process x
RO
Process y
+ AOP retentate
RO
Process z
case 1a
case 1b
case 1c
RO
AOP
A
A
A
B
Treat
ment
C
AC2
AC1
Treat
ment
C
MC2
Treat
ment
B
MC1
AB1
MB1
AA1
MA1
Treat
ment
A
Treat
ment
B
”Higher quality” use
Pilot
MBR
Treat
ment
A
Cooling tower make-up
Process waste water ( x plants )
Existing
WWTP
case 3
Cooling tower
case 4
case 5
Plant A
Process a
Denutritor
B?
B?
D
D
D
D
case 2
1
MBR
Treatment
A
Treatment
B
Treatment
C
Treatment
D
Common sewer to WWTP
AS1
AS2
AS3
B
Process b
Process c
Process d
3
Effect of pilot technologies,
examples
Combination #5, AS2 ( AS>AOP>DeN>RO )
WWTP
ozone/AOP
A1= clarifier line 1
A2= clarifier line 2
A3= to tal effluent WWTP
Denutritor
C2 C3
E2
E1
RO
C4
D2
D1
A3
C1
E1= influen t o zo ne/AOP
E2= effluent ozone/AOP
ba sic treatment of organics
C1= influen t Denutritor
C2= after column 1
C3= after column 2
C4= effluent Den utritor
reduce biofouling/biofilm down stream
D3
D1= feed RO
D2= p ermeate RO
D3= concentrate RO
reduce patogenes, biofouling/biofilm down stream; reduce organic content ( increase biodegradeability )
reduce scale, salts & metals ( and patogenes & biofouling/biofilm down stream )
Logisticon Water Treatment
Perstorp Specialty Chemicals AB, WWTP
Design data
Q
TOC
BOD7
COD
Removal 2011
3 600 m3/d
6 200 kg/d
8 500 kg/d
14 000 kg/d
Sampling point,
influent
Equalisation
tank 1
3000 m3
Pretreatment
TOC
BOD7
COD
Aeration
tank 1
1500 m3
Aeration
tank 2
3000 m3
Equalisation
tank 2
2000 m3
Clarifier 1 1
Sedimentering
100 m2
100
Sampling point,
effluent
Flotation
Flotation
2
50
50 m
m2
Cooling dam
Clarifier 2 2
Sedimentering
150
150mm22
Effluent 2011
Influent 2011
Q
TOC
BOD7
COD
2 220 m3/d
2 100 kg/d
2 421 kg/d
6 654 kg/d
Schematic overview of MBR pilot unit Logisticon Wate Treatment
94,8 %
99,7 %
95,4 %
Q
TOC
BOD7
COD
P-tot
2 007m3/d
108 kg/d
7 kg/d
309 kg/d
0,19 mg/l
4
Setup Denutritor biofilter with pre-filter
Interior of Logisticon MBR pilot
BM
BM
BM
BM
V
BM = Biofouling monitor
P = Pressure gauge
WM = Water meter
V = Valve
aeration
Influent
buffer 1
AS / MBR /
AOP
Prefilter
Influent
buffer 2
PC
W
M
P
V
P
P
V
pH
Redox
V
O2
Temp.
Denutritor biofilter, filler/filter
[Effluent]
Data
logger
Flow Scheme ozone/AOP
Three biofilters in series (each 12.5 L)
Filler: Polyurethane (PUR) foams
course medium fine
200 400 700 m2/m3
Upflow operation (0.3 – 0.4 m3/hr)
Filling material (course foam)
Biofilms on filling material
5
Ozone/AOP pilot for AquaFit4Use
Lay out of the RO membrane filtration pilot at Perstorp
concentrate
Q
Q
bleed
P
T
Q
dP
permeate
RO membrane
RO concentrate tank
feed
pressure pump
prefilter 10 µm
wash tank
RO pilot for AquaFit4Use
Operational parameters of the RO system
Flux ( lmh )
Pressure ( bar )
Temperature ( °C )
Flow, feed ( L/min )
Flow, perm ( L/min )
Flow, bleed ( L/min )
Flow, recirc ( L/min )
Recovery, water ( % )
VCF
RO pilot by
15 - 20
10 - 20
25 - 30
35
2,5
2,5
30
50
2
Difficult to compare results and draw generic conclusions when testing
on “real” process waste water/effluent due to variations in the feed.
Perstorp Specialty Chemicals AB
6
Development of normalized permeability
AS1
1,20
As an indication of the performance of the RO system, the development of
Rtot as a function of produced RO permeate volume was investigated
1,00
Kw/Kw,o
0,80
J = (dP – dPo) / η * Rtot
0,60
blocked prefilter
0,40
0,20
0,00
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Vacc,perm
Development of normalized total resistance of the RO membrane
Development of normalized total resistance of the RO membrane
(WWTP effluent after biofiltration as feed to RO)
(MBR effluent without further treatment as feed to RO)
MBR3
AS1
2,00
2,00
high VCF
blocked
prefilter
1,50
Rtot/Rtot,o
Rtot/Rtot,o
1,50
1,00
1,00
0,50
0,50
0,00
0
0,00
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Vacc,perm ( L )
Vacc,perm ( L )
7
Total normalized fouling resistance of the RO membrane
at different permeate volume produced
The resistance-in-series model is correlated to the flux and permeability:
=>
2,5
J = (dP – dPo) / η * (Rmem + Rfo)
J = (dP – dPo) / η * Rtot
2
J
Kw
dP
dPo
η
Rmem
Rfo
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
flux; m3/m2/s or in practice l/m2/h (lmh)
permeability; l/m2/h/Pa
pressure difference between feed and permeate; Pa
osmotic pressure difference at membrane surface and permeate; Pa
viscosity of water; Ns/m
hydraulic resistance of the membrane; 1/m
fouling resistance of the fouling component; 1/m
Rfoul *E+14
Kw = J / (dP – dPo)
1,5
start train
20 m3
40 m3
60 m3
80 m3
1
0,5
0
AS1
MBR3
MBR1
MBR2
AS2
set up
Hypothesis regarding anticipated fouling model
The resistance-in-series model can be used to explain the effect of biofouling from
EfOM on the permeability/flux decline.
crossflow
It is assumed that the resistance of these different EfOM fractions can be added together as:
Rtot = Rmem + Rcoll,fo + RHMW,fo + RMMW,fo + RLMW,fo + Rrr,fo + Rirr,fo
Rtot
Rmem
Rcoll,fo
RHMW,fo
RMMW,fo
RLMW,fo
Rrr,fo
Rirr,fo
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
total resistance of the membrane including all types of fouling; 1/m
hydraulic resistance of the membrane; 1/m
fouling resistance of colloids and weak interaction with the membrane; 1/m
fouling resistance of HMW fractions with weak interaction to the membrane; 1/m
fouling resistance of MMW fractions with weak interaction to the membrane; 1/m
fouling resistance of LMW fractions with weak interaction to the membrane; 1/m
fouling resistance of reversible adsorption with the used cleaning routine; 1/m
fouling resistance of irreversible adsorption with the used cleaning routine; 1/m
biofouling
fouling/scaling
membrane
8
Organic substances
from biological treatment processes
Reduction of EfOM
organic carbon
by MBR (UF)
filtration
www.doc-labor.de
Composition of active sludge (EfOM) by size (from Jiang Tao)
Conseptual Full Scale Unit for Reuse of WWTP effluent
Reduction the HMW fraction of EfOM
organic carbon by MBR (UF) filtration
0-25 m3/h
LC-OCD
(Cleaning)
Equalisation
Tank
(Cleaning)
Back Wash Water
140
120
100
rel signal
80
MBR feed
Biological
WWTP
25-50 m3/h
Retentate
50 m3/h
RO
Membrane
100 m3/h
To Recipient
50 m3/h
Permeate
to Steam
Generation
Plant
Buffer
Tank
60
MBR effluent
Back Wash Water
40
Permeate
100 m3/h
(Cleaning)
20
Flotation
Unit
0
100 m3/h
Disc
Filter
100 m3/h
UF
Membrane
-20
ret time ( min )
Overflow
To Recipient
9
Investment costs:
Operational costs on yearly basis:
RO unit of 2500 m2, 200 €/m2; 50 m3/h
MF/UF unit of 4400 m2, 160 €/m2; 100 m3/h
Fine screen drum filter; 105 m3/h
Housing ( included above )
Tanks
Connections
Electricity & Instrumentation
Extras
500 k€
700 k€
100 k€
0 k€
100 k€
50 k€
100 k€
50 k€
Sum
1 600 k€
Pumping station & piping
200 k€
Total sum
1 800 k€
Example local loop,
Neo plant case
(today)
4 m3/h
wash. column
prod.
stream
xxx mg /l
Energy, RO; 2000 kWh/day
Energy, MF/UF 200 kWh/day
Energy, fine screen drum filter; 6 kWh/day
Energy, pumping; 15 kWh/day
Chemicals, RO unit
Chemicals, MF/UF unit
Membranes, RO unit; new every 5 years
Membranes, MF/UF unit; new every 5 years
Sum
Operational cost, specific
The cost for energy was set to 0,1 €/kWh.
Assuming a depreciation of investment costs around 10% and an interest rate of 10 %, the total
yearly cost including investment can be estimated to 516 k€/year, corresponding to 1,18 €/m3.
Example local loop,
Neo plant case
(reuse & recovery)
min. conc.
4 m3/h
wash. column
recovered product
reuse of water
less hydraulic & organic load on WWTP
evaporator
73 k€
7,3 k€
0,2 k€
0,5 k€
12 k€
8 k€
30 k€
25 k€
156 k€
0,36 €/m3
Make Up
Cooling
Tower
AOP
prod.
stream
xxx mg /l
evaporator
6 m3/h
permeate
10 m3/h
RO
%-conc.
>10 m3/h
tank 2
(reused
internally)
3 m3/h
6 m3/h
to WWTP
tank 1
(collecting
tank)
13 m3/h
%-conc.
>10 m3/h
tank 2
(reused
internally)
tank 1
(collecting
tank)
yyy mg /l
3 m3/h
13 m3/h
retentate
10
…and Thank You to our partners in AquaFit4Use WP 5.2.2/3
Thank You for Your Attention !
European Commission
Fouling mechanism of MBR membranes
Fouling mechanism of MBR membranes
11
Fouling mechanism of MBR membranes
The resistance-in-series model can be used to explain the effect of biofouling from
EfOM on the permeability/flux decline.
It is assumed that the resistance of these different EfOM fractions can be added together as:
Rtot = Rmem + Rcoll,fo + RHMW,fo + RMMW,fo + RLMW,fo + Rrr,fo + Rirr,fo
Rtot
Rmem
Rcoll,fo
RHMW,fo
RMMW,fo
RLMW,fo
Rrr,fo
Rirr,fo
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
total resistance of the membrane including all types of fouling; 1/m
hydraulic resistance of the membrane; 1/m
fouling resistance of colloids and weak interaction with the membrane; 1/m
fouling resistance of HMW fractions with weak interaction to the membrane; 1/m
fouling resistance of MMW fractions with weak interaction to the membrane; 1/m
fouling resistance of LMW fractions with weak interaction to the membrane; 1/m
fouling resistance of reversible adsorption with the used cleaning routine; 1/m
fouling resistance of irreversible adsorption with the used cleaning routine; 1/m
(From Jiang Tao)
The Pilots !!!!
Flux and pressure vs produced permeate volume in WP 5.2.2
J
P
AS2
40,00
80
J (lmh)
MBR1
MBR2
35,00
70
30,00
60
25,00
50
20,00
40
15,00
30
10,00
20
5,00
P (bar)
MBR3
AS1
10
0,00
0
0
10648
25472
45919
60065
80858
97423
104082
143830
179800
186015
220192
256413
329985
365173
402144
416161
437989
480576
Vacc (L)
12