1 / 27

Phosphorus Removal in a Membrane Reactor System—A Demonstration Study

Phosphorus Removal in a Membrane Reactor System—A Demonstration Study. Wayne Lorenz, P.E. and Matthew J. Gavin Wright Water Engineers, Inc. and Newell Wright, P.E. Arapahoe County Water and Wastewater Authority. MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR (MBR). SAMPLE POINT 3 PERMEATE. SAMPLE POINT 1 INFLUENT.

omer
Download Presentation

Phosphorus Removal in a Membrane Reactor System—A Demonstration Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Phosphorus Removal in a Membrane Reactor System—A Demonstration Study Wayne Lorenz, P.E. and Matthew J. GavinWright Water Engineers, Inc. and Newell Wright, P.E.Arapahoe County Water and Wastewater Authority

  2. MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR (MBR) SAMPLE POINT 3PERMEATE SAMPLE POINT 1INFLUENT FERRIC CHLORIDE INFLUENT UV DISINFECT ANOXIC BASIN AEROBIC BASIN MEMBRANES DISCHARGE MEMBRANE VACUUM/PERMEATE PUMPS INFLUENT PUMP STATION MECHANICALLY CLEANED BAR SCREEN RECYCLE SOLIDS SAMPLE POINT 2MBR PROCESS SCHEMATIC LONE TREE CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

  3. MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR (MBR) ANOXIC BASIN AEROBIC BASIN MEMBRANES RECYCLE SOLIDS

  4. ZeeWeed® Membrane Immersible, Ultra Low Pressure, Oxidant Resistant, High Strength Process Tank (Influent) Inner reinforcing structure covered with a composite polymer outer layer Filtered Water Membrane Layer Pore Size 0.085 micron (nominal) 0.1 micron (absolute) Inner Reinforcing Structure Operates at -2 psi to -6 psi when filtering and 3 psi on backpulse X-Section

  5. — 3 — 3 FePO4(S) AlPO4(S) — 4 — 4 Fe(PO4)(X-3)/3 (OH)X(S) Al(PO4)(X-3)/3 (OH)X(S) Log Molar Soluble Phosphorus — 5 — 5 Fe(OH)3(S) —6 — 6 Al(OH)3(S) — 7 — 7 2 4 6 8 3 5 7 9 pH Value pH Value

  6. FERRIC CHLORIDEFe+3 + HnPO4n-3 FePO4 + nH+FeCl3 + 3H2O  Fe(OH)3 + 3H+ + 3Cl-

  7. SODIUM ALUMINATEAl+3 + HnPO4n-3 AlPO4 + nH+Na2Al2O4 + 4 H2O  2 Na+ + Al2(OH)4 + 4 (OH-)

  8. Note: Samples filtered through a 0.45-micron filter.

  9. Notes: 1. Samples filtered through 0.45 micron filter. 2. pH adjusted to 6.5 using sulfuric acid.

  10. Phase 1 Conditions • Conducted over 15 weeks—December through March • Average Daily Inflow = 0.98 mgd • Membrane Filtration Area - 96,000 ft2 • Average Filtration Rate = 10.2 gpd/ft2 • Ferric Chloride Dosage 80 to 100 mg/L • No pH Adjustment

  11. Note: Phosphorus analyses performed by Chadwick Ecological Consultants.

  12. MBR Average Effluent Quality Total Phosphorus 0.035 mg/L BOD5 2.8 mg/L Ammonia 1.3 mg/L Nitrate 5.8 mg/L pH 7.0

  13. CONCLUSIONS • Phosphorus Goal of 0.05 mg/L was met using ferric chloride at a dosage of 80 to 100 mg/L • Average Phosphorus Concentration was 0.035 mg/L • Phosphorus removed to 0.05 mg/L regardless of temperature

  14. CONCLUSIONS • Addition of chemical to precipitate Phosphorus impacts pH and alkalinity • pH conditions are key in optimizing Phosphorus removal • Activated sludge was not affected by dosages in study

  15. Phase 2 Testing • Demonstrate 0.02 mg/L P removal, or less • Different chemicals • Limit of biomass viability • Membrane maintenance

More Related