efficacy and for trace contaminant removal in water reuse...
Post on 14-Jul-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
G‐0005‐stock‐2010
Tem
plate Final.ppt
Efficacy and Energy Requirements for Trace Contaminant Removal in Water Reuse Systems
Ben Stanford, Ph.D. andJean Debroux, Ph.D.withShane Snyder, Dan Gerrity, and Megan Plumlee
Texas Water Reuse ConferenceJuly 12, 2013
Austin, TX
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
WRF‐08‐05Use of Ozone in
Water Reclamation for Contaminant
OxidationSouthern Nevada Water Authority
WRF‐08‐08Oxidative
Technologies for Reducing Membrane
FoulingSouthern Nevada Water Authority
WRF‐09‐10Use of UV and
Fluorescence Spectra as Surrogates for Contaminant Oxidation and Disinfection
Southern Nevada Water Authority
WRF‐10‐11Ozone Pretreatment of a Non‐Nitrified Secondary Effluent
before Microfiltration
TrussellTechnologies
WRF‐11‐01Monitoring for Reliability and
Process Control of Potable Reuse ApplicationsUniversity of Arizona
WRF‐11‐02Equivalency of Advanced
Treatment Trains for Potable Reuse
TrussellTechnologies
WRF‐11‐08Formation of
Nitrosamines and Perfluorochemicalsduring Ozonation in
Water ReuseSouthern Nevada Water Authority
• Ozone/AOP• Potable Reuse• Process Control• Monitoring• Contaminants• Microbes
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
Contaminants in CA Reuse Context
• CA Regulates microbes and CECs “12‐10‐10” rule for viruses, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium Specific log removal for CECs
• 0.5‐log (69%) for most indicators• 0.3‐log (50%) for recalcitrant indicators
BUT, removal is based on Full Advanced Treatment or “FAT” – MF + RO + UV/AOP Is there a “non‐FAT” option? Is it effective for CECs and pathogens? How Much Does it Cost?
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
City of Las Vegas Water MBR‐Ozone‐RO
Ozonation of Secondary/Tertiary Effluents
MF O3 BAC
Membrane Fouling
(Contaminant Oxidation)
Contaminant Oxidation and Disinfection
UV/H2O2
Final Disinfection
O3
MFO3 BAC
Contaminant Oxidation /
Increased UV Transmittance
UV
O3
O3MF
Primary Clarifier EffluentAerobic Basin 1
Anoxic Basin
MembraneAerobic Basin 2
MBR Effluent MBR ControlsHiPOx(Ozone AOP)
HiPOx Effluent
NaOCl NH4Cl Anti‐Scalant Reverse Osmosis Pilot Effluent
6
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
MBR‐HiPOx‐RO: Reuse Treatment
UnitsMBR
InfluentMBR
FiltrateHiPOxEffluent
HiPOxEffluent
RO Permeate
RO Permeate
6.0 mg/L O3
6.0 mg/L O3+2.1 mg/L
H2O2
(no oxidation treatment)
(1.5 mg/L O3 pre-
oxidation)Atenolol ng/L 3000 600 <25 57 <25 <25Atrazine ng/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10Carbamazepine ng/L 180 150 <10 <10 110 <10DEET ng/L 130 85 30 28 <25 <25Meprobamate ng/L 2000 430 383 360 <10 <10Dilantin ng/L 240 170 65 47 <10 <10Primidone ng/L 310 170 84 68 <10 <10Sulfamethoxazole ng/L 2800 1400 <25 38 <25 <25Trimethoprim ng/L 1500 100 <10 <10 <10 <10TCEP ng/L 800 540 480 450 <200 <200Bisphenol A ng/L 250 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50Diclofenac ng/L 700 160 <25 <25 <25 <25Gemfibrozil ng/L 5200 62 <10 <10 <10 <10Ibuprofen ng/L 30000 30 <25 <25 <25 <25Musk Ketone ng/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100Naproxen ng/L 29000 31 <25 <25 <25 <25Triclosan ng/L 67 160 <25 <25 <25 <25
Indirect Potable ReuseFull Available
Treatment (FAT):
Membrane Fouling
(Contaminant Oxidation)
O3MBR
Indirect Potable Reuse
Advantages of O3-BAC Disadvantages of O3-BAC
Source: Sundaram et al. (2009) WateReuse Research Symposium
FAT:
Non-FAT:
MF O3 BAC Recharge
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
Effluent
Indirect Potable Reuse Pilot Project
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
Deep Bed Filter ‐ Ozone ‐ BAC
Atrazin
e
Carbam
azep
ine
Dilanti
n (Phe
nytoi
n)Fluo
xetin
eGem
fibro
zilIo
prom
ideNap
roxe
n
n-Nitro
sodim
ethyla
mine
Sulfam
ethox
azole
Triclos
anC
once
ntra
tion
(ng/
L)
0
10
20
30
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Influent Post Ozone Post BAC
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
NDMA Co
ncen
tration (ng/L)
Background NDMA Concentration in Pilot Studies
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
Trace Organic Contaminant Removal by Ozone (Pisarenko, Stanford, et al)
Indirect Potable Reuse
Advantages of O3-BAC
Nearly complete TOrC removal
Eliminates concentrated brine stream
Reduced energy consumption
Disadvantages of O3-BAC
No reduction in salinity
Potential for bacterial regrowth
Higher TOC in effluent
NDMA formation?Source: Sundaram et al. (2009) WateReuse Research Symposium
FAT:
Non-FAT:
MF O3 BAC Recharge
Difficulty with Control & Monitors:Ozone Disinfection in Wastewater
• CT concept is not applicable to ascertain if disinfection or contaminant removal has beenachieved
Drinking Water Wasetwater
[O3] [O3]
Time Time
CT
CT
How can we verify our transferred ozone dose in real‐time?
0
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560 600
Wavelength (nm)
Abs
orba
nce
(cm
-1)
O3:TOC = 0O3:TOC = 0.25O3:TOC = 0.5O3:TOC = 1.0O3:TOC = 1.5
Increasing Ozone / •OH Exposure
O3:TOC = 0 O3:TOC = 0.25 O3:TOC = 0.5 O3:TOC = 1.0 O3:TOC = 1.5
UV=0 mJ/cm2 UV=23 mJ/cm2 UV=45 mJ/cm2 UV=225 mJ/cm2 UV=680 mJ/cm2
Change in Fluorescence during Ozonation
Change in Fluorescence during UV/H2O2 (10 mg/L H2O2)
How can we verify our transferred ozone dose in real‐time?
3D Excitation Emission Matrices (EEMs)
Humic‐Like Substances
Fulvic‐Like Substances
Microbial Byproducts
Regional Integration Method
Chen et al. (2003) ES&T 37: 5701‐5710
O3:TOC = 0 O3:TOC = 0.25 O3:TOC = 0.5 O3:TOC = 1.0 O3:TOC = 1.5
UV=0 mJ/cm2 UV=23 mJ/cm2 UV=45 mJ/cm2 UV=225 mJ/cm2 UV=680 mJ/cm2
Change in Fluorescence during Ozonation
Change in Fluorescence during UV/H2O2 (10 mg/L H2O2)
How can we verify our transferred ozone dose in real‐time?
O3:TOC 0.25 0.5 1.0 1.5
UV254 Reduction 22% 32% 46% 57%
UV254 absorbance is:• more consistent than fluorescence at low O3:TOC ratios
• less consistent than fluorescence at high O3:TOC ratios
Possibly related to higher H2O2 doses at high O3:TOC ratios during O3/H2O2experiments
How can we verify our transferred ozone dose in real‐time?
O3:TOC 0.25 0.5 1.0 1.5
TF Reduction 51% 65% 83% 96%
Total fluorescence is:• less consistent than UV254 at low O3:TOC ratios
• but more consistentthan UV254 at high O3:TOC ratios
How can we verify our transferred ozone dose in real‐time?
Carbamazepine (Group 1) DEET (Group 3)
How can we estimate contaminant oxidation in real-time?
Carbamazepine (Group 1) DEET (Group 3)
How can we estimate contaminant oxidation in real-time?
Carbamazepine (Group 1) DEET (Group 3)
How can we estimate contaminant oxidation in real-time?
E. coli
How can we estimate microbial inactivation in real-time?
E. coli
MS2
How can we estimate microbial inactivation in real-time?
MS2
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
How Do We Estimate TOrC/CEC Removal Costs?
O3 Dose 1.5 mg/L 3 mg/L 6 mg/L 9 mg/LO3:TOC Ratio 0.25 0.5 1.0 1.5
Average Percent Destruction of Target Compounds (CECs)
Group 1 >90% >90% >90% >90%
Group 2 >60% >90% >90% >90%
Group 3 >30% >60% >90% >90%
Group 4 >15% >30% >60% >80%
Group 5 <5% >5% >15% >20%
Oxidation efficacy at 50 MGD O3‐BAC Treatment Plant
‐ Based on 10 minute EBCT for BAC process
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
Ozone System Size
CapacityOzone
Contactor Capital Cost
Equipment Capital Cost
Total Project Cost
Capital Unit Cost
lb/day MGD mil $ mil $ mil $ mil$/MGD250 10 0.098 1.27 7.63 0.764400 16 0.133 1.38 8.46 0.529534 21 0.161 2.34 14.0 0.6551020 41 0.244 1.25 8.35 0.2051300 52 0.285 2.80 17.2 0.3325000 200 1.002 3.50 25.2 0.1267200 288 1.404 5.00 35.8 0.1249750 389 1.972 7.50 52.9 0.13613400 535 2.682 10.0 70.9 0.132
y = 2.011x‐0.474R² = 0.876
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Capital Costs ($M/M
GD)
Flow (MGD)
Relative Ozone Capital Costs ‐ 10 to 535 MGD ‐ 2011 Costs (ENRCCI = 9116)
CapEX and O&M Costs Developed for Multiple Technologies
• Curves developed as stand‐alone unit processes
• Ozone• BAC
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
BAC costing assumptions and results
• Based on drinking water GAC designs• Costs estimated for 10 and 20 minute Empty Bed Contact Times (EBCTs)
• Cost curves separated into <10 MGD and ≥10 MGD to develop better curve fit
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
Other Cost Curves Developed• UV/AOP (assumes 400 mJ/cm2 and 10 mg/L peroxide dose)
• MF• RO
y = 0.251x‐0.056R² = 0.274
0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.450.50
0 20 40 60 80 100Capital Costs ($
M/M
GD)
Flow (MGD)
y = 1.893x‐0.223R² = 0.962
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Capital Costs ($
M/M
GD)
Flow (MGD)
y = 0.303x‐0.219R² = 0.803
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
O&M Costs ($
M/M
GD)
Flow (MGD)
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5
Indicator Naproxen Atenolol Ibuprofen Atrazine TCEP
10% Reduction 0.25 0.65
30% Reduction 0.25 0.50 >1.50
50% Reduction 0.25 0.35 0.80
70% Reduction 0.40 0.55 1.20
90% Reduction 0.25 0.65 1.05 >1.50
WateReuse 08‐05: O3:TOC Ratios for Contaminant Removal
We can modify the cost curves to account for changes in ozone dose
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
O3 Dose 3 mg/L Ozone
6 mg/L Ozone
12 mg/L Ozone
O3:TOC Ratio 0.3 0.6 1.2Capital Costs $29M $30.6M $32.2MAnnual O&M $2.8M $3.1M $3.6MGroup 1, % Removal >90% >90% >90%Group 2, % Removal 50 – 70% 70 – 90% >90%Group 3, % Removal ~50% ~70% >90%Group 4, % Removal 10 – 30% 30 – 50% ~70%Group 5, % Removal <10% ~10% 10 – 30 %
WateReuse Research Project 08‐05, Costs for Contaminant Destruction @ 50 MGD Facility with 10 mg/L TOC (EfOM)
(Accounts for Ozone + BAC)
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
Process Trains and Capital Costs ($M/MGD)
Capacity (MGD)
O3‐BACMF‐O3‐BAC
MF‐ROMF‐RO‐UV/AOP
MF‐O3‐RO
1 $4.0 $5.9 $5.7 $5.9 $7.8
5 $1.8 $3.1 $4.0 $4.2 $4.9
10 $1.3 $2.4 $3.4 $3.6 $4.1
25 $0.82 $1.8 $2.8 $3.0 $3.2
50 $0.58 $1.4 $2.4 $2.6 $2.7
80 $0.46 $1.2 $2.2 $2.4 $2.4
Flow‐Normalized Capital Costs
Combinations of Processes
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
Flow‐Normalized O&M Costs
Process Trains and Annual O&M Costs ($M/MGD)
Capacity (MGD)
O3‐BACMF‐O3‐BAC
MF‐ROMF‐RO‐UV/AOP
MF‐O3‐RO
1 $0.08 $0.38 $0.54 $0.58 $0.55
5 $0.06 $0.27 $0.51 $0.55 $0.52
10 $0.06 $0.24 $0.48 $0.51 $0.48
25 $0.06 $0.20 $0.42 $0.46 $0.43
50 $0.06 $0.18 $0.38 $0.41 $0.39
80 $0.05 $0.17 $0.36 $0.39 $0.36
Combinations of Processes
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
Closing Remarks• What is the major driver for treatment choice selection in potable reuse applications?
• What water quality goals are required?• Are there ways to minimize capital and O&M costs to achieve the water quality goals?
• Ozone + BAC may be a possible option for indirect potable reuse
• Other factors should be considered Specific water chemistry Removal objectives End use of water Engineered or environmental buffers
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
bstanford@hazenandsawyer.com
File locatio
n name he
re.ppt
Ozone Generators
Ozone System Size
CapacityOzone
Contactor Capital Cost
Equipment Capital Cost
Total Project Cost
Capital UnitCost
‐ lb/day MGD mil $ mil $ mil $ mil$/MGD2x125 250 10 0.098 1.27 7.63 0.7642x200 400 16 0.133 1.38 8.46 0.5292x267 534 21 0.161 2.34 14.0 0.6551x1020 1020 41 0.244 1.25 8.35 0.2052x650 1300 52 0.285 2.80 17.2 0.3322x2500 5000 200 1.002 3.50 25.2 0.1263x2400 7200 288 1.404 5.00 35.8 0.1243x3250 9750 389 1.972 7.50 52.9 0.1364x3350 13400 535 2.682 10.0 70.9 0.132
top related