1
AGENDA
CERAMIC FLAT SHEET MEMBRANES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Why is PFAS Removal Important?
What are the Current Challenges?
Results from Pilot Tests
How the Technology Works
Conventional Plant Retrofit
Membrane Plant Retrofit
Scalability
Total Cost of Ownership
CERAFILTEC filtration tower
3
THE ‘PFAS’ PROBLEM
3
CRITICAL NATIONAL ISSUE
5
KNOWN PFAS CONTAMINATION
Credit: Map from Environmental Working Group (www.ewg.org)
As of Jan. 6, 2021
6
KNOWN PFAS CONTAMINATION
Credit: Map from Environmental Working Group (www.ewg.org)
As of Oct. 5, 2021
7
LACK OF VIABLE SOLUTIONS
CURRENT OPTIONS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Conventional Sand Filters don’t remove PFAS
Home water filters don’t remove PFAS
Boiling doesn’t remove PFAS
Prevalent in Landfill Leachate
Detected in Surface Waters and Groundwater
Reintroduced into Wastewater Treatment Plants
GAC Adsorption is costly and inefficient
RO is costly and inefficient
• Why not a low-pressure, low-cost, easily maintained solution to
retrofit existing Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants?
8
PILOT TEST RESULTS
PILOT TEST RESULTS
8
ACTIVE CAKE LAYER FILTRATION
MORE THAN COMMON ULTRAFILTRATION:
COMBINING ADSORPTION WITH FILTRATION
Selective removal of dissolved
contaminations such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ions
Molecules
DOM
VOC
pharmaceutical toxins
2-MIB, Geosmin
PFAS, PFOA, etc.
Powdered activated carbon layer
Membrane
10
PAC vs. GAC AND R-GAC
11
SUBMERGED vs. PRESSURIZED
12
SUBMERGED vs. PRESSURIZED
12
SUBMERGED vs. PRESSURIZED
BENEFITS OF SUBMERGED vs. PRESSURIZED
•
The cake layer can be used as an additional filter bed for enhanced
removal of very small particles and colloidal fractions.
•
Sorption processes inside the cake layer enable the selective removal of
dissolved contents like radium, Uranium, arsenic, or organics.
•
A formed cake layer can function as a protective coating to minimize
biofouling or scaling.
•
Improvement of filtered water quality can reduce the design and process
efforts of subsequent treatment steps.
12
C6 REMOVAL
•
•
•
3.3X Higher Adsorption
5.3X higher Bed Volumes
45X Shorter EBCT
13
C8 REMOVAL
14
C8 REMOVAL
www.cerafiltec.com/pfas-removal
15
ROME, GA PILOT TEST - 2021
PAC Coated Membranes
Rome, Georgia Pilot
After Backwash
16
PFAS REMOVAL RESULTS
Rome, Georgia Pilot
17
PFAS REMOVAL RESULTS
Before PAC
With PAC Cake Layer
Rome, Georgia Pilot
PFAS compounds not shown were BDL
18
24-HOUR BREAKTHROUGH RESULTS
Rome, Georgia Pilot
19
24-HOUR BREAKTHROUGH RESULTS
Total PFAS vs. Time
Rome, Georgia Pilot Test
Total PFAS
MCL
Feed Water
300
Feed Water 244 ppt Total
250
Concentration (ppt)
200
150
100
Advisory Limit 70 ppt
49.76
48.14
50
33.69
8.22
1.74
-
-
15.47
13.42
7.35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Time (hours)
Rome, Georgia Pilot
Active Cake Layer Filtration + CERAFILTEC = Results
20
CARBON SELECTION FACTOR
Rome, Georgia Pilot
21
PILOT OPTIONS
20-Foot Container – Available Jan. 2022
Euro Pallet Skid Unit – Available Dec. 2021
22
PILOT TEST RESULTS
HOW THE TECHNOLOGY WORKS
8
TECHNOLOGY CLASSIFICATION
Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration Typical pore size 0.05 – 0.5 µm
24
MODULE DEVELOPMENTS
1993 2004
2005
2006 2007 2009
2011
2013
2015 2016
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021+
FIRST
MODULE
PROTOTYPES
26
MODULE DEVELOPMENTS
1993 2004
2005
2006 2007 2009
2011
2013
2015 2016
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021+
NEWEST AVAILABLE
MODULE SERIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
2x higher flux (880 GFD in the lab)
Exchangeable single ceramic plates
Integrated filtered water piping
No surrounding frame
Injection-molded GFRP housing
Corrosion resistant. No metal parts
27
FILTRATION & BACKWASH
SUBMERGED OUT-TO-IN FILTRATION
28
FILTRATION & BACKWASH
IN-TO-OUT BACKWASH
29
FILTRATION & BACKWASH
CLEAN WATER FLOW IN A TANK
During Filtration
During Backwash
30
FILTRATION & BACKWASH
CLEAN WATER FLOW INSIDE THE MODULE
During Filtration
During Backwash
31
MATERIAL MAKES THE DIFFERENCE
NEGATIVE CHARGE OF MEMBRANE = LOW
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO FOULING AND CLOGGING
32
THE IMPACT OF pH
Forsyth Co, Georgia
33
MATERIAL MAKES THE DIFFERENCE
HYPER HYDROPHILIC MEMBRANE SURFACE
= EXTREMELY HIGH FLUX RATES
34
IRON & MANGANESE REMOVAL
11.10.2021
35
WATER RECLAMATION
36
PILOT TEST RESULTS
CONVENTIONAL PLANT RETROFIT OPTIONS
8
CONVENTIONAL RETROFIT
STUDY
2
3
4
PROJECTION
EXECUTION
OPERATION
PHASE 1
• DEMO 4 SAND FILTERS
• ADD 2 TRAINS OF
MEMBRANES
• EXISTING 14 MGD
• NEW 17.3 MGD
MCC and
equipment
building
Filtration train 2
Filtration pumps train 1 & 2
Filtration train 1
Backwash tank
CONVENTIONAL RETROFIT
STUDY
2
3
4
PROJECTION
EXECUTION
OPERATION
PHASE 2
REHABILITATION OF 9
SAND FILTERS
11 12 13
NEW PLANT CAPACITY
35.1 MGD
5 6
7 8 9 10
GREATER EFFICIENCY & PRODUCTION WITHOUT EXPANSION OF FOOTPRINT
•
•
•
Conventional Sand Filters: 2 – 4 GPM/SF
Backwash Rate: 20 GPM/SF
Average Recovery: 93% - 95%
•
•
•
Ceramic Flat Sheet Membranes: 11 - 22 GPM/SF
Backwash Rate: 22 - 44 GPM/SF
Average Recovery: 98.5% - 99.5%
TANK – IN – TANK OPTIONS
Tank-in-Tank Retrofit
• Composite tank
• Precast tank
• Poured-in-place tank
or divider walls
• Pre-formed tank bottom
Convert Unused Basins to
Backwash or Equipment Vaults
Selection Criteria
• Basin depth
• Accessibility
• Need for added capacity
40
SELECTED CASE STUDIES
GORGAN, CASPIAN SEA
3.8 MGD
REMOVAL OF SUSPENDED
SOLIDS, BACTERIA,
DISSOLVED ORGANICS,
IRON
PRE-TREATMENT FOR
REVERSE OSMOSIS
REQUIRES BEST WATER
QUALITY (HIGHER THAN
DRINKING WATER)
PROJECT EXPERIENCES
41
SELECTED CASE STUDIES
GORGAN, CASPIAN SEA
DESIGN,
INSTALLATION
START-UP,
AND
COMMISSIONING
PROJECT EXPERIENCES
42
PILOT TEST RESULTS
POLYMERIC MEMBRANE PLANT RETROFIT OPTIONS
8
PLASTIC MEMBRANE RETROFIT
44
PLASTIC MEMBRANE RETROFIT
45
LARGE-SIZE REFERENCES
1993 2004
2005
2006 2007 2009
2011
2013
2015 2016
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021+
#1 MEGA PROJECT
DRINKING WATER
100,000 m³/d brackish groundwater;
Replacement of ZW1000 polymeric
membranes;
Removal of iron, manganese, and
radioactive isotopes;
RO pre-treatment; Buraydah, Saudi
Arabia
46
LARGE-SIZE REFERENCES
1993 2004
2005
2006 2007 2009
2011
2013
2015 2016
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021+
#2 MEGA PROJECT
DRINKING WATER
56,000 m³/d brackish groundwater;
Replacement of Memcor polymeric
membranes;
Removal of iron, manganese, and
radioactive isotopes;
RO pre-treatment; Buraydah, Saudi
Arabia
47
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES
TECHNOLOGICAL
• Treats all challenging water (high TSS/turbidity,
oily water, hot water, algae bloom, and peak
events) without extended treatment.
• Active Cake Layer Filtration for additional
removal of dissolved compounds.
• Fastest cleaning option.
• Higher recovery rate – less waste discharge.
• No performance decay (no fiber breakages),
consistent water quality.
• Low TCO (very long lifetime,
very low power consumption).
• Simplified pre-treatment.
• Extended lifetime of
surrounding equipment & RO
• Discontinuous operation option – can be
started, stopped, or dry stored at any time.
48
PILOT TEST RESULTS
SCALABILITY
8
SCALABILITY
RETROFIT ALMOST ANY TANK
Empty Tank
Equipment Installed
Stack modules from 4 to 15 units high in each tower
50
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Only the CERAFILTEC Module allows the full
potential of CFMs to be obtained
•
•
•
•
•
Strong intellectual property.
Increases performance of CFMs by 2X
Compact and modular to any size
Highly scalable production technology
100% corrosion resistant
Up to 1.43 million gallons per day.
For 17,800 people the size of a closet
Up to 228,000 gallons
per day; For 2,880
people; the size of a
dresser
CERAFILTEC
Module
Up to 19,000 gallons per
day For 240 people; ;
Size of a suitcase
51
SCALABILITY OF OPERATIONS
Total Cost of Ownership
• Labor is Driver in Small Plants
• Built-in Capacity Expansion
• Modular / Skid Mounted
52
PILOT TEST RESULTS
TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP COMPARISON
8
KEY APPLICATIONS
GROUNDWATER BENCHMARK
Membrane CAPEX
Membrane TCO (15 yrs)
per m³/d filtration capacity
per m³/d filtration capacity
$54
$60
$120.0
$50
$100.0
$40
$80.0
$30
$20
$21
$15
$12
$10
$20
$11
$10
2020
Polymeric submerged
$33
$20.0
$-
Polymeric pressurized *
1/3rd
TCO
$40.0
$2015
$96
$60.0
$23
$13
$100
2025
CERAFILTEC
*extended pre-treatment of pressurized polymeric membranes not
included in CAPEX benchmark
Chemical cleaning
Power
Replacement
Initial CAPEX
Total
Polymeric
pressurized
$27.4
$38.3
$22.6
Polymeric
submerged
$27.4
$8.4
$39.6
$11.9
$100
$20.8
$96
CERAFILTEC
$5.5
$7.7
$5.1
$14.8
$33
54
KEY APPLICATIONS
SURFACE WATER BENCHMARK
CAPEX of Membrane Equipment per m³/dfiltration
capacity
$120
15 years TCO Membrane Equipment per m³/d
filtration capacity
$120.0
$100
$100.0
TCO
$82
$80
$80.0
$60
$60.0
$34
$40
$20
$31
$13
-18%
$102
$99 $97
$37
$33
$12
$30
$22 $22
$11
2020
Polymeric pressurized
Polymeric submerged
Ceramic (Alumina)
Ceramic (SiC)
$67
$40.0
$20.0
$2015
$73
2025
*pressurized polymeric membranes require extended pre-treatment
in high turbidity feed water (not included in CAPEX benchmark)
$Chemical cleaning
Power
Replacement
Initial CAPEX
Total
Polymeric
pressurized
$21.9
$35.6
$12.9
$11.9
$82
Polymeric
submerged
$21.9
$14.5
$33.9
$31.3
$102
Ceramic
(Alumina)
$11.5
$14.4
$10.8
$36.7
$73
Ceramic
(SiC)
$11.0
$11.5
$10.9
$33.3
$67
55
KEY APPLICATIONS
WASTEWATER REUSE BENCHMARK
15 years TCO Membrane Equipment per m³/d
filtration capacity
CAPEX of Membrane Equipment per m³/dfiltration
capacity
$200
$188
$169
$180
$180.0
$160
$140.0
$140
$120.0
$120
$60
$42 $48 $50
$46
$23
$21
2015
$40
$20
$20
$-
$89
$90
Ceramic
(Alumina)
$12.6
$13.5
$15.5
$47.6
$89
Ceramic
(SiC)
$11.5
$11.9
$16.7
$50.0
$90
$80.0
$80
$40
TCO
$119
$100.0
$100
-25%
$157
$160.0
2020
Polymeric pressurized
Polymeric submerged
Ceramic (Alumina)
Ceramic (SiC)
$60.0
$31 $33
$40.0
$20.0
2025
*pressurized polymeric membranes require extended pre-treatment
in high turbidity feed water (not included in CAPEX benchmark)
$Chemical cleaning
Power
Replacement
Initial CAPEX
Total
Polymeric
pressurized
$23.0
$35.6
$39.6
$20.8
$119
Polymeric
submerged
$23.0
$13.3
$79.2
$41.7
$157
56
TIPPING POINT
INDUSTRY TRANSFORMATION!
Source: June 2017, GWI
Industry experts knew for years that ceramic membrane technology is the next-generation
water treatment solution; The only challenge has cost. This has changed!
Source: Global Water Intelligence
57
INDUSTRY INFLECTION POINT
INDUSTRY TRANSFORMATION!
2.0M m²
>$300 per m³/d
1.8
Membrane cost per m³/d
$300
1.6
$250
Inflection
Point
0.01M m²
$200
$30 per m³/d
1.2
1.0
$150
0.8
0.6
$100
0.4
$50
$0
2005
1.4
Production capacity [M m²]
2.0
$350
0.2
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
0.0
2020
Year
58
GLOBAL OVERVIEW
100
mgd
90
Projects
IN 29 COUNTRIES
Application split
TOTAL TREATMENT CAPACITY
Oldest plant: 2005 | MBR | Golf course St. Wendel | Germany | 0.013 MGD
Largest plant: 2020 | Groundwater| Tabuk| Saudi Arabia| 40.92 MGD
59
SUMMARY
CERAFILTEC IS THE BEST SOLUTION WHEN
CHALLENGES INCLUDE EITHER:
• Removal of
•
•
•
•
•
Iron/manganese (other heavy metals) removal
•
Taste, Odor, Color
•
Hardness
•
Trace amounts (pharmaceutical toxins, PFAS, DOM, VOC, radioactive isotopes)
Oil /water separation
Hot water
Intermittent operation
Challenging feed water: peak events, high turbidity or suspended solids,
algae, etc.
60
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Celeste Gleave Celeste@Fyvestar.com
Ph: 801. 599. 5559
Sue Melke Sue@Fyvestar.com
Ph: 323. 521. 8751
60