Upload
nguyenngoc
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
End-congress in Brugge, 8th/9th of May 2012
Presentation
Aquafit4Use end-congress 8th of May 2012
Retort for refining of acetic acid 1884
2
Damms
Electricity
Steam
Waste gas tr.
WWTPWTP
El. distribution
Typical fresh water use on the Perstorp Industrial Estate
� Possible effects on product quality
� Possible effects on equipment & piping
� Possiple effects on working environment
Issues to consider when planning water reuse "low" "high"
Parameter Effluent Cooling Water Process Water Newater RO-permeate unit
pH 7,9 6,5-9,0 7,6 7,0-8,5 7,1 ---
conductivity 3800 (< 200) 170 < 250 5,3 µS/cm
alkalinity (M) (CaCO3) 20-100 mg/l
alkalinity (HCO3-) 270 21 5,5 mg/l
hardness (CaCO3) < 30 < 30 mg/l
ammonia nitrogen (NH4-N) 0,16 (< 10) 0,1 < 0,5 < 0,01 mg/l
nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N) 32 (< 60) 0,21 < 0,1 mg/l
TDS 2,59 < 1000 < 180 0,06 mg/l
turbidity 2,1 0,34 < 5 < 0,1 NTU
color, 405 nm 28 9 < 5 mg Pt/l
BOD7 < 3 mg/l
COD(Cr) 198 mg/l
TOC 60 < 10 1,0-2,0 < 2 mg/l
total nitrogen 22 mg/l
total phosphorous 0,12 mg/l
chloride (Cl-) 800 < 60 (90) 33 < 30 12 mg/l
sulphate (SO42-) 960 240 10 < 5 1,4 mg/l
Ca 12,5 < 24 8,4 < 30 < 0,2 mg/l
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 < 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
Target values for “high” and “low” water quality for reuse
3
� 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 !
Central vs local reuse optionsBackground to examples
Overview AquaFit WP 5.2.2, technologies
Existing
WWTP
Pilot
MBR
Coolin
g to
wer m
ake-u
p
”Hig
her q
uality
”use
Pro
cess w
aste
wate
r ( x p
lants )
Coolin
g to
wer
1 Treat
ment
A
Treat
ment
B
AA
1
Treat
ment
C
AB
1
AC
1
AC
2
Treat
ment
A
Treat
ment
B
MA
1
Treat
ment
C
MB
1
MC
1
MC
2
A B C
AS1 Denutritor RO + AOP retentate
AS2 AOP Denutritor ROAS3 ROMBR1 Denutritor RO + AOP retentate
MBR2 AOP Denutritor ROMBR3 RO
Overview AquaFit WP 5.2.3, technologies
Plant A
Plant B
Process d
Process c
Process b
Process a
Cooling tower
Process z
Process y
Process x
Com
mon se
wer to
WW
TP
Treatment
A
Treatment
B
Treatment
C
Treatment
D
RO AOP MBR Denutritor
case 1a A B
case 1b A B ?
case 1c A B ?
case 2 Dcase 3 Dcase 4 D
case 5 D
4
Effect of pilot technologies, examples
Combination #5, AS2 ( AS>AOP>DeN>RO )
basic treatment of organics reduce biofouling/biofilm down stream
reduce patogenes, biofouling/biofilm down stream; reduce organic content ( increase biodegradeability )
reduce scale, salts & metals ( and patogenes & biofouling/biofilm down stream )
D1 D2
RO
D3
D1= feed ROD2= permeate ROD3= concentrate RO
C1
C4
Denutritor
C2 C3
C1= influent Denutri torC2= after column 1C3= after column 2C4= effluent Denutri tor
A3
WWTP
A1= clarifier l ine 1A2= clarifier l ine 2A3= to tal effluent WWTP E2E1
ozone/AOP
E1= influent ozone/AOPE2= effluent ozone/AOP
Perstorp Specialty Chemicals AB, WWTP
Design data Removal 2011
TOC 94,8 %BOD7 99,7 %COD 95,4 %
Q 3 600 m3/dTOC 6 200 kg/dBOD7 8 500 kg/dCOD 14 000 kg/d
Effluent 2011
Q 2 007m3/dTOC 108 kg/dBOD7 7 kg/dCOD 309 kg/d P-tot 0,19 mg/l
Influent 2011
Q 2 220 m3/dTOC 2 100 kg/dBOD7 2 421 kg/dCOD 6 654 kg/d
Sampling point,
influent
Sedimentering 1100 m2
Sedimentering 2150 m2
Flotation
50 m2
Sampling point,
effluent
Equalisation
tank 1
3000 m3
Aeration
tank 2
3000 m3
Aeration
tank 1
1500 m3
Clarifier 1
100 m2
Clarifier 2
150 m2
Flotation
50 m2Pre-
treatment
Equalisation
tank 2
2000 m3
Cooling dam
Logisticon Water Treatment
Schematic overview of MBR pilot unit Logisticon Wate Treatment
5
Interior of Logisticon MBR pilot
PC
VVV
BM = Biofouling monitor
P = Pressure gauge
WM = Water meter
V = Valve
Setup Denutritor biofilter with pre-filter
V
P P P
[Effluent]
WM
Influent
buffer 1
AS / MBR / AOP
Redox O2
Data loggerTemp.
BM BM BMBM
pH
Prefilter
Influent
buffer 2
aeration
Denutritor biofilter, filler/filter
� 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
Flow Scheme ozone/AOP
6
Ozone/AOP pilot for AquaFit4Use
Lay out of the RO membrane filtration pilot at Perstorp
RO concentrate tank
RO membrane
concentrate
bleed
pressure pumpprefilter 10 µm
permeatedP
TP
Q
Q
Q
wash tank
feed
RO pilot for AquaFit4Use
RO pilot by
Perstorp Specialty Chemicals AB
Operational parameters of the RO system
Flux ( lmh ) 15 - 20
Pressure ( bar ) 10 - 20
Temperature ( °C ) 25 - 30
Flow, feed ( L/min ) 35
Flow, perm ( L/min ) 2,5
Flow, bleed ( L/min ) 2,5
Flow, recirc ( L/min ) 30
Recovery, water ( % ) 50
VCF 2
Difficult to compare results and draw generic conclusions when testing
on “real” process waste water/effluent due to variations in the feed.
7
Development of normalized permeability
AS1
0,00
0,20
0,40
0,60
0,80
1,00
1,20
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
Vacc,perm
Kw/K
w,o
blocked prefilter
As an indication of the performance of the RO system, the development of
Rtot as a function of produced RO permeate volume was investigated
J = (dP – dPo) / η * Rtot
Development of normalized total resistance of the RO membrane(WWTP effluent after biofiltration as feed to RO)
AS1
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
Vacc,perm ( L )
Rto
t/R
tot,
o
blocked
prefilter
Development of normalized total resistance of the RO membrane(MBR effluent without further treatment as feed to RO)
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000
Rto
t/R
tot,
o
Vacc,perm ( L )
MBR3
high VCF
8
The resistance-in-series model is correlated to the flux and permeability:
J = (dP – dPo) / η * (Rmem + Rfo)
=> J = (dP – dPo) / η * Rtot
Kw = J / (dP – dPo)
J = flux; m3/m2/s or in practice l/m2/h (lmh)
Kw = permeability; l/m2/h/Pa
dP = pressure difference between feed and permeate; Pa
dPo = osmotic pressure difference at membrane surface and permeate; Pa
η = viscosity of water; Ns/m
Rmem = hydraulic resistance of the membrane; 1/m
Rfo = fouling resistance of the fouling component; 1/m
Total normalized fouling resistance of the RO membrane
at different permeate volume produced
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
AS1 MBR3 MBR1 MBR2 AS2
set up
Rfo
ul *
E+
14 start train
20 m3
40 m3
60 m3
80 m3
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 = total resistance of the membrane including all types of fouling; 1/m
Rmem = hydraulic resistance of the membrane; 1/m
Rcoll,fo = fouling resistance of colloids and weak interaction with the membrane; 1/m
RHMW,fo = fouling resistance of HMW fractions with weak interaction to the membrane; 1/m
RMMW,fo = fouling resistance of MMW fractions with weak interaction to the membrane; 1/m
RLMW,fo = fouling resistance of LMW fractions with weak interaction to the membrane; 1/m
Rrr,fo = fouling resistance of reversible adsorption with the used cleaning routine; 1/m
Rirr,fo = fouling resistance of irreversible adsorption with the used cleaning routine; 1/m
Hypothesis regarding anticipated fouling model
membrane
fouling/scaling
biofouling
crossflow
9
Composition of active sludge (EfOM) by size (from Jiang Tao)
Organic substancesfrom biological treatment processes
Reduction of EfOM organic carbonby MBR (UF) filtration
www.doc-labor.de
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
rel sig
nal
ret time ( min )
LC-OCD
MBR feed
MBR effluent
Reduction the HMW fraction of EfOMorganic carbon by MBR (UF) filtration
Conseptual Full Scale Unit for Reuse of WWTP effluent
EqualisationTank
Flotation
Unit
WWTP
Disc
RO Membrane
UFMembrane
Buffer
Tank
100 m3/h 100 m3/h
100 m3/h
50 m3/h
25-50 m3/h0-25 m3/h
Back W
ash W
ate
r
Back Wash Water
Retentate
Permeate
to Steam
Permeate
(Cleaning)
Overflow
To Recipient
Biological
Filter
(Cleaning)
(Cleaning)
100 m3/h
50 m3/h
To Recipient
Generation
Plant
10
Investment costs:
RO unit of 2500 m2, 200 €/m2; 50 m3/h 500 k€
MF/UF unit of 4400 m2, 160 €/m2; 100 m3/h 700 k€
Fine screen drum filter; 105 m3/h 100 k€
Housing ( included above ) 0 k€
Tanks 100 k€
Connections 50 k€
Electricity & Instrumentation 100 k€
Extras 50 k€
Sum 1 600 k€
Pumping station & piping 200 k€
Total sum 1 800 k€
Operational costs on yearly basis:
Energy, RO; 2000 kWh/day 73 k€Energy, MF/UF 200 kWh/day 7,3 k€
Energy, fine screen drum filter; 6 kWh/day 0,2 k€Energy, pumping; 15 kWh/day 0,5 k€
Chemicals, RO unit 12 k€
Chemicals, MF/UF unit 8 k€Membranes, RO unit; new every 5 years 30 k€
Membranes, MF/UF unit; new every 5 years 25 k€Sum 156 k€
Operational cost, specific 0,36 €/m3The 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.
tank 1
(collectingtank)
evaporator
wash. column
tank 2
(reusedinternally)
to WWTP
4 m3/h
13 m3/h3 m3/h
6 m3/h>10 m3/h
%-conc.
xxx mg /l
prod.
stream
Example local loop,Neo plant case(today)
RO tank 1
(collectingtank)
evaporator
wash. column
tank 2
(reusedinternally)
Make Up
Cooling Tower
permeate
retentate
4 m3/h
13 m3/h
3 m3/h
6 m3/h
10 m3/h
>10 m3/h
%-conc.
min. conc.
xxx mg /l
yyy mg /l
� recovered product
� reuse of water� less hydraulic & organic load on WWTP
Example local loop,Neo plant case(reuse & recovery)
AOP
prod.
stream
11
Thank You for Your Attention !Thank You for Your Attention !Thank You for Your Attention !Thank You for Your Attention !
…and Thank You to our partners in AquaFit4Use WP 5.2.2/3
European Commission
Fouling mechanism of MBR membranes Fouling mechanism of MBR membranes
12
Fouling mechanism of MBR membranes
(From Jiang Tao)
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 = total resistance of the membrane including all types of fouling; 1/m
Rmem = hydraulic resistance of the membrane; 1/m
Rcoll,fo = fouling resistance of colloids and weak interaction with the membrane; 1/m
RHMW,fo = fouling resistance of HMW fractions with weak interaction to the membrane; 1/m
RMMW,fo = fouling resistance of MMW fractions with weak interaction to the membrane; 1/m
RLMW,fo = fouling resistance of LMW fractions with weak interaction to the membrane; 1/m
Rrr,fo = fouling resistance of reversible adsorption with the used cleaning routine; 1/m
Rirr,fo = fouling resistance of irreversible adsorption with the used cleaning routine; 1/m
Flux and pressure vs produced permeate volume in WP 5.2.2
0,00
5,00
10,00
15,00
20,00
25,00
30,00
35,00
40,00
0 10648 25472 45919 60065 80858 97423 104082 143830 179800 186015 220192 256413 329985 365173 402144 416161 437989 480576
Vacc (L)
J (
lmh
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
P (
bar)
J P
AS1 MBR2
AS2
MBR1MBR3
The Pilots !!!!