Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wastewater
346
347
348
and out of the module at the bottom and to drain. The backwash flux
will be about three times the processing flux rate.
e. Top backwash: This is the same as bottom backwash, however, the
water exits out of the top feedwater port and then to drain.
f. Chemically enhanced backwash: Provisions for feed of two or three
chemicals are made to inject into the backwash water in front of the
membranes. Typically citric acid, caustic, or sodium hypochlorite is
used. They can be pumped in during the backwash step. Also soak
times can be programmed in to allow longer contact time to help
clean the membrane.
g. A second drain down and air pressurization followed by a second top
backwash may be included.
h. A final rinse puts the unit back into operation mode, but wastes the
filtrate for a short period of time.
An example of a hollow fiber single module pilot unit set-up may be as
follows:
1. Processing time: 45 minutes.
2. Filtrate flow set point: 12 gpm.
3. First drain down: 8 seconds.
4. First air pressurization: 15 seconds.
5. Forward flush: 0
6. Forward flush flow: 0
7. Bottom backwash: 12 seconds.
8. First top backwash: 14 seconds.
9. Chlorine soak: 200 seconds.
10. Chemical soak: 200 seconds.
11. Second drain down: 10 seconds.
12. Second air pressurization: 0
13. Second top backwash: 10 seconds.
14. Final rinse: 10 seconds.
15. Chlorine inject: 4 cycles.
16. Chemical inject: 16 cycles.
Cross-flow
For higher solids waters, the membrane may be set up to operate in a crossflow mode.
Wastewater
349
The performance and economics of filtration depend upon the rate at which
water flows through the membrane. This is the flux rate and is expressed in
gallons per square foot of membrane surface area per day (GFD). The system
is set up to operate at a fixed flux rate or filtrate flow rate by the use of a
VFD on the supply pump. Any accumulation of retained material at the
surface will reduce the effective filtration rate and create the need for higher
supply pressure to maintain the set flux rate. Concentration of solids at the
surface occurs in a dynamic state but its effect is similar to the filter cake
build-up at the separation surface in conventional filtration. The trans
membrane pressure builds and the unit will go into the backwash cleaning
cycle. This is established by service cycle time. Excessive trans membrane
pressures must be avoided to prevent damage to the membranes.
Actual desirable flux rates depend upon the membrane manufacturer, flow
path, membrane material, water characteristics, and water temperature. Some
starting point guidelines are shown below. The high-end flux rates are for
relatively clean feedwaters with turbidities of less than 1 NTU or total
Wastewater
350
suspended solids of less than 1. The low-end flux rates are for dirtier waters
with turbidities of 15 NTU or greater, and total suspended solids of 20 ppm
or greater.
Table 1
Water Source:
City
water
or
pretreated
surface
water
70 90
Well water
65 90
58 70
Sea water
45 70
32 50
Treated
industrial
waste water
35 55
Wastewater
351
Multi-media
MF
UF
Turbidity
0.1 2 NTU
SDI15
3 Filter
Blinding
<3
<2
Crown Solutions designed and built a pilot UF system to allow dead-end and
cross-flow testing of hollow fiber UF membrane technology for industrial
applications. The purpose for pilot testing includes the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
There are many challenges faced with this technology including variations of
influent water quality, temperature changes, high TOC water,
microbiological effects, and others. Conducting a UF or MF pilot test
requires monitoring of several parameters and making effective adjustments
to determine if a full-scale system will be effective and to determine how to
design it properly.
The pilot system has supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)
capability where operating data is automatically acquired and stored. The
data is stored in the RS View software, and then periodically downloaded
into an Excel spreadsheet. Manual data logging is also advisable to backup
the electronically stored data and to check the sensor transmitters.
Date.
Time.
Machine run time, hours.
Wastewater
352
Feedwater temperature, C or F.
Screen filter inlet pressure and out pressure, psi.
Membrane module top feedwater pressure, psi.
Membrane module bottom feedwater pressure, psi.
Filtrate pressure, psi.
Feed turbidity, NTU.
Filtrate turbidity, NTU.
Filtrate flow, gpm.
Bleed flow (if in cross-flow mode), gpm.
Recycle flow, gpm.
Drain flow and totalizer.
Filtrate Flux
Filtrate flux is expressed in gallons per square foot of filter area per day
(gfd). Therefore the average filtrate flux is the flow of product water
divided by the surface area of the filter. Filtrate flux is expressed according
to the following equation:
F = Q/S
Where F = filtrate flux (gfd).
Q= filtrate flow in gallons per day (gpd).
S = filter surface area (ft2).
Wastewater
353
Wastewater
354
Specific Flux
The term specific flux is used to refer to filtrate flux that has been
normalized for the trans membrane pressure. The equation for specific flux
is as follows:
FTM = F/ TMP20C
Where FTM = Specific flux (gfd/psi).
F = filtrate flux (gfd).
TMP20C = Temperature compensated trans membrane
pressure (psi).
Differential Pressure or P
The pressure difference between the top and the bottom of the UF module of
the feedwater during processing is used to monitor feedwater side fouling.
(Differential pressure of the prefilters should also be monitored).
P = PFeedbottom PFeedtop
Instantaneous Recovery
This is the recovery of water from the system for one processing/backwash
cycle. This only looks at the efficiency based upon backwashes and does not
include chemically enhanced backwashes, CIPs, or bleedoff if in a crossflow mode.
RI =
[ 1V
Backwash
355
RT =
[V
Filtrate to Process
/ VTotal Feedwater
] *100, (%).
Case Studies:
1) Pharmaceutical Plant SBR Wastewater for Recycle.
This pilot test used an extremely challenging water. The plants wastewater
is high in organics so it is treated biologically with four sequential batch
reactors (SBR). The effluent from this secondary treatment process is then
sent through a clarifier followed by multi-media filters prior to RO and then
recycled back for plant cooling. Even after biological treatment and
clarification, the water was still high in TOC and TSS. It was the plants
desire to eliminate the clarifiers and go directly from the SBRs to multimedia, and then UF. A multi-media filter was included as part of the pilot
equipment to be able to test the water without it first going through the
clarifier.
Water after the plants SBR, clarifier, and the plants multi-media filters was
first used as UF feedwater and baseline data gathered.
Next, we tested water directly from the SBRs to the pilot multi-media filter
prior to UF. Even by operating in a cross-flow mode this water was too high
in TSS and TOC for the UF. Fouling occurred rapidly even at a low flux rate
of 30 GFD.
Most of the test period was then dedicated to clarifier effluent water filtered
by the pilot multi-media filter prior to UF. The pilot required the addition of
ferric chloride ahead of the filter to reduce TOC, because TOC can blind UF
membranes rather quickly. The pilot extended several months to establish an
effective strategy. Some key points were as follows:
Wastewater
356
MMF
Effluent
UF
Filtrate
TSS, mg/L
160
BDL
Turbidity,
NTU
36
<0.1
TOC, mg/L
70-260
70-260
70-190
<3
COD, mg/L
210-320
190-220
180-200
<1
Hardness,
RO
Permeate
200
CaCO3
Alkalinity,
600
CaCO3
pH
Conductivity,
S
SDI 15
7.4
4300
<1
The final trial ran successfully on 45 minutes cycles and a stable specific flux
was managed with an operating flux of 50 GFD. The chemically enhanced
backwash schedule showed to be effective with caustic addition every four
cycles and sodium hypochlorite additions every six cycles. Total system
recovery was 90%.
Wastewater
357
Average
NTU
Feedwater
39
Turbidity,
0.08
53.8
Average
Pump
Pressure, PSIG
Discharge
18
74
System Recovery
94.1%
270
10
2
Specific Flux
864.3
833.3
802.3
771.3
740.3
709.3
678.3
647.3
616.3
585.3
554.3
523.3
492.3
461.3
430.3
399.3
368.3
337.3
306.3
275.3
244.3
213.3
182.3
151.3
89.3
120.3
58.3
27.3
Wastewater
358
Average Result
3.92
0.20
8.2-8.4
450
6.5
75
50
25
>6
The UF Filtrate quality data that was collected showed excellent results:
Parameter
Product Flow Rate
Water Temperature
Trans Membrane Pressure
Feed Turbidity
Product Water Turbidity
Filtrate Pressure
Silt Density Index (SDI)
The process cycle was set for 40 minutes; that is, product water was
produced for 40 minutes before the unit automatically switched over to the
Wastewater
359
backwash sequence. The pilot ran for over 30 days and the TMP never
increased to the 20-psig point where an out of service chemical clean was
actually needed. A cleaning with citric acid was performed followed by
caustic after the pilot and the TMP was fully recovered.
A pilot softener and RO were successfully operated using the UF filtrate for
feedwater as part of this test.
Microbial Removal
During start-up and prior to the UF system running continually, lake water
turbidity was averaging 60 NTU, with surges as high as 100 NTU. While the
system did not run continuously during those high readings, when in
operation, the filtrate turbidity was 0.030 NTU or less.
Wastewater
360
The following testing parameters were conducted throughout the pilot study:
Total Hardness
Total Alkalinity
AMC
Total Coliforms
Pyrogens
Two different UF filter modules were used during the pilot. They differed in
the diameter of the lumens and total surface area.
A multi-media filter was installed in front of the UF unit to act as a prefilter
for lake upset conditions. During the initial portion of the study, the filtration
system ran at varying target flux rates due to a variation in feed water
temperature, which ranged from 40 F to 70 F. The resulting flux rate from
these temperatures ranged from 40 GFD to 51 GFD. Filtrate cycle length,
which is the time between backwashes, was 30 minutes. Each filter cycle run
was followed by a 250-second backwash sequence. Every fourth backwash
cycle, the backwash water was chlorinated at 5 to 10 ppm free chlorine.
Increases in TMP were recovered with extended chlorine soaks.
Initially, the water temperature was 41 F and the operating flux rate was 40
GFD. These operating conditions were experienced until April 14, 2003
when the feedwater temperature increased to approximately 70 F. During
that time period, the flux rate was 46.6 GFD. During the study, a filtration
cycle consisted of 30 minutes. System recovery was 93%.
Silt Density Index
Date
Filtrate
4/18/03
1.05
4/21/03
1.05
5/1/03
1.00
5/22/03*
1.01
5/23/03*
0.78
361
Bacteria analysis showed some low levels in the filtrate. The pilot unit used
for this test allowed some cross contamination of backwash water with
filtrate at the sample point and this was thought to be the major source of
bacteria found in the filtrate.
Date
3/25/03
3/31/03
4/14/03
4/21/03
4/28/03
5/1/03
Date
3/5/03
3/21/03
3/25/03
3/26/03
3/28/03
3/31/03
4/2/03
4/4/03
4/14/03
4/16/03
4/18/03
4/21/03
4/23/03
4/25/03
4/28/03
4/30/03
5/2/03
5/5/03
5/20/02*
5/21/03*
5/22/03*
5/23/03*
Filtrate
2.03
1.73
1.54
1.73
2.03
Filtrate
12,133
957
136
29
36
4
1
5
3
25
31
1
15
101
88
29
15
74
47
77
56
101
Wastewater
362
Pyrogens (EU/ml)
Date
Lake Water
Filtrate
3/25/03
>32.0
3/31/03
>32.0
>0.5, <1.0
4/14/03
>32.0
>1.0, <2.0
4/21/03
>32.0
>4.0, <8.0
3/28/03
>32.0, <64.0
>1.0, <2.0
5/5/03
>128.0, <256.0
>0.5, <1.0
80
75
70
65
D e n o te s th e e n d o f P h a s e I
60
55
I n c r e a s e in f e e d w a t e r t e m p e r a t u r e
GFD
50
45
40
35
30
F e e d w a te r te m p e ra tu re d e c re a s e
25
20
15
10
73
70
67
64
61
58
55
52
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
5
D a y s o f T ria l
F lu x
Tem p
Transmembrane Pressure
17
16
H ig h T M P d u e to in a p p ro p r ia te flu x r a te
15
H ig h fe e d w a te r tu r b id it y p ro c c e d in g t m p s p ik e
14
13
12
11
Pressure
10
9
T M P a f te r c h lo r in e a n d c a u s tic s o a k
8
7
D e n o te s th e e n d o f P h a s e I
6
5
4
3
2
1
73
70
67
64
61
58
55
52
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
0
D a y s o f T ria l
Wastewater
363
Feedwater Turbidity
60
55
50
45
D e n o te s e n d o f P h a s e I
40
NTU
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
73
70
67
64
61
58
55
52
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
0
D a y s o f tria l
Filtrate Turbidity
0 .1 0 0
0 .0 9 0
0 .0 8 0
R e a d ing o b t a in e d im m e d ia t e ly a f te r s y s t e m re s ta rt
S y s te m s h u t d o w n p re v io u s d a y 4 / 2 7 / 0 3
0 .0 7 0
NTU
0 .0 6 0
0 .0 5 0
D e n o t e s th e e n d o f P h a s e I
0 .0 4 0
0 .0 3 0
0 .0 2 0
0 .0 1 0
73
70
67
64
61
58
55
52
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
0 .0 0 0
D a y s o f T r ia l
Wastewater
364
Filtrate
Feedwater
Concentrate
Wastewater
365
Filtrate
Feedwater
Feedwater
Wastewater
366
Filtrate
Dirty Water
to Drain
Wastewater
367
Wastewater
368