35
Nanofiltration Membrane Pilot Studies for Disinfection By-Product Control by Eric Lynne, EIT B.S. – Civil and Environmental Engineering (2007) South Dakota State University

Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Nanofiltration Membrane Pilot Studies for Disinfection By-Product Control

by Eric Lynne, EIT

B.S. – Civil and Environmental Engineering (2007) South Dakota State University

Page 2: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Introduction

Objective Preliminary Tests Screening Tests Large Scale Pilot Tests Conclusions

Page 3: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

(Bergantine 2007)

Page 4: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Restrictions

Stage 2 D/DBP Rule< 80 μg/L TTHM< 60 μg/L HAA5

Big Sioux River < 1000 mg/L TDS

Energy EfficientHigh Flow at Low Applied Pressure

Page 5: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Background

DBP Problem

Treatment Methods: ChloraminationNF Membranes

Pilot Plant Testing

Page 6: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Background

Chloramination

Low DBPs CreatedEffective

Page 7: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Background – Spiral Wound Membrane

(Hydranautics 2008)

1 2 3

4 5

Page 8: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Background

Membranes

PermeateConcentrateRecoveryStages

(AWWA 1999)

Page 9: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Nanofiltration

PermeateConcentrate

(AWWA 1999)

Page 10: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Background

Membrane Problems

Inorganic ScalingOrganic Fouling

Microbial or Silt Fouling

(Malki 2008, Dow 2008)

Page 11: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Preliminary Testing

Water QualityTOCUV254

SDIAmmonia

Chloramination

Page 12: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Preliminary Testing

ResultsWater Quality

• Well Specific

• UV254 TOC

• SDI: Raw < 5; Feed ~ 1• Naturally occuring ammonia

a) WTP Influent

b) Filter Effluent

Page 13: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Chloramination

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Chlorine : Ammonia Ratio

Res

idua

l (m

g/L

)

Free Chlorine Total ChlorineMonoChloramine Free Ammonia

Page 14: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Chloramination56, 59 μg/L TTHM

Page 15: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Chloramination

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Chlorine : Ammonia Ratio

Res

idua

l (m

g/L

)

Free Chlorine Total ChlorineMonoChloramine Free Ammonia

Page 16: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Chloramination56, 59 μg/L TTHM

10 μg/L TTHM

Page 17: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Preliminary - Conclusions

Source Water for NF Pilot Plant Direct Nanofiltration of raw water is feasible Filter Effluent is preferred

Chloramination viable alternative with 82% TTHM reduction

Page 18: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

NF Membrane Pilot Plants

Phase I – ScreeningKoch TFC-SR2 (K2)Koch TFC-SR3 (K3)Trisep XN45-TSF (T)Hydranautics ESNA1-LF (HE)Hydranautics HydraCoRe-70pHT (HH)Dow/Filmtec NF270 (DF)

(Trisep 2008)

Page 19: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Phase I – Screening

Hold flux constant Vary recovery for each membrane tested

Page 20: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Phase I – Results

TOC and UV254 removal

NF Membrane and Percent Recovery

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

15 50 80 15 50 80 15 50 80 15 50 80 15 50 80 15 50 80K2 K3 T HE HH DF

Per

cen

t R

emov

alTOC UV254

Page 21: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Phase I – Results

TTHM reduction

NF Membrane and Percent Recovery

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

15 50 80 15 50 80 15 50 80 15 50 80 15 50 80 15 50 80K2 K3 T HE HH DF

Per

cen

t R

emov

al87% Minimum Rejection Allowed

Page 22: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Phase I – Results

Concentrate TDS concentration

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

K2 K3 T HE HH DF

NF Membrane

Tot

al D

isso

lved

Sol

ids

(mg/

L)

Disposal limit 1000 mg/L

Page 23: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Phase I - Conclusions

Membrane TDS < 1000 mg/L >87% TTHM reduction

Koch TFC-SR2 NO NO

Koch TFC-SR3 NO YES

Trisep XN45-TSF YES YES

Hydranautics ESNA1-LF NO YES

HydraCoRe-70pHT YES NO

Dow/Filmtec NF270 NO YES

Page 24: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Phase II 85% recovery

Variable Flux: 9, 12, 15 gfd

Determine design criteria

Page 25: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Photographs of Pilot Plant

Page 26: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Phase II - Results

TOC and UV254 removal

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

9* 12 15 9 12 15 9 12 15

K3 T HE

NF Membrane and Flux Rate (gfd)

Per

cen

t R

emov

al

TOC UV254

Page 27: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

9* 12 15 9 12 15 9 12 15

K3 T HE

NF Membrane and Flux Rate (gfd)

Per

cen

t R

edu

ctio

n

Phase II - Results

TTHM reduction

87% Minimum Rejection Allowed

Page 28: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Phase II - Results

Adjusted Specific Flux

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

9* 12 15 9 12 15 9 12 15

K3 T HE

NF Membrane and Flux Rate (gfd)

Adj

uste

d Sp

ecif

ic F

lux

to 2

5°C

(gf

d/ps

i)

Page 29: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Phase II - Results

Ammonia (NH3-N) Removal

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

9* 12 15 9 12 15 9 12 15

K3 T HE

NF Membrane and Flux Rate (gfd)

Per

cen

t R

ejec

tion

Page 30: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Phase II – Results

Fouling

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Hours

Ad

just

ed S

F (

gfd

/psi

)

.

T HE

Page 31: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Phase II – Results

Fouling

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Days

Con

du

ctiv

ity

(μS

/cm

)

TriSep XN45-TSF

Hydranautics ESNA1-LF

Page 32: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Phase II - Conclusions

Blend Ratio: 44%/56%

Concentrate TDS Increased SF decreased with increasing flux Design Criteria

Applied pressures ranged from 64-165 psi Specific flux values ranged from 0.13-0.21 gfd/psi System recovery rate of 85% Permeate TTHM values ranging from 1.1-2.5 μg/L

No substantial fouling observed

Page 33: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Phase II - Conclusions

Highest Specific Flux = Trisep XN45-TSF Highest TTHM rejection = Hydranautics ESNA1-LF

Membrane Optimum Setting Costs

Koch TFC-SR3 __ gfd ??

Trisep XN45-TSF __ gfd ??

Hydranautics ESNA1-LF __ gfd ??

Page 34: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Recommendations

Cost Data Verify 15 gfd @ 80% recovery Select Hydranautics ESNA1-LF

15 gfd @ 85% recovery (costs?) Consistent Source Water One Membrane for Phase II Challenge Membrane to Foul

Page 35: Defense Presentation 6_26_09

Questions