THE EFFECT OF FLOCCULANTS ON FILTER PERFORMANCE

BY A.G. NOBLE

Introduction

The relatively poor filter performance achieved by many Queensland mills during recent
years resulted in renewed interest in this subject during the 1970 season. Investigations into various
aspects of mud filtration were conducted by Hale, Whayman and Willersdorf (1970), Mcgrath (1970)
and Noble (1970). Much of this work was of a preliminary nature and was concerned with the effect
of flucculating agents on filter performance.

To obtain further information on this subject, a series of factory scale trials was carried out
at Plane Creek and Millaquin mills during the latter half of 1971 season. This paper presents the
results obtained in that Investigation.

Equipment and Test Procedure

At plane Creek, All trials were carried out on the 580 ft2 Eimco filter, While at Millaquin
measurements were made over the whole Station, viz., a 684 ft2 Oliver Campbell filter and a 300 ft2
Wizard filter. Each of these mills is equipped with facilities for adding flocculant and/or lime to filter
feed. The flocculant was added in coagulator through which the feed must pass before entering the
boots of the filters. At Plane Creek, milk of lime was added in the feed mingler, while at Millaquin
the point of addition was the mud tank.

The flocculant studied in these trials were Separan AP 273 at Plane Creek, and Sedipur TF 2
at Millaquin. Both were prepared as 0.2-0.3 per cent stock solutions which were diluted to approx.
0.03 percent before addition to the filter feed. When flocculant was added, the rate of addition was
fixed at 1 p.p.m on cane.

Where lime was added to the feed, the rate of addition was regulated to give a filtrate pH of
approx. 8.5. The lime requirement to the achieve this was of the order of 0.01 percent on cane,
except during the first few hours of crushing when weekend standover mud was being processed
(see Appendix II).

The general procedure used in these trials was to select the desired feed conditions (viz., no
flocculant and no lime, flocculant only, lime only, or flocculant plus lime) and to adjust the rates of
addition of these additives accordingly. The whole station was then allowed to operate under these
new conditions for at least 24 hours before any trials were carried out. The object of this 24-hour
delay period was to allow the effects of changes in retention and mud solids recirculation to work
back through the process. With the resulting channge in mud solids loading on the clarifiers and
filters it was also neccessary to alter bagacillo addition to maintain a constant fibre ratio in filter feed
(see Appendix I).
 Throughout this work, the filter speed was fixed at a level which was adequate to handle the
mud solids loading on the factory. At plane creek, this was about 15 rev/ hour, and at Millaquin 10
rev/hour. The total water usage was maintained at about 150 percent on mud output.

After the 24 hour delay period to allow the effect of changed retention to be felt, the
procedure in carrying out a trial was as follows:

(a) The mud output, filter speed, wash water usage and filter vacuum were recorded at 10-
minute intervals over a 30 minute test period. Mud output was determined by weighing
the cake collected from a known area of screen, while the wash water flowrate was
measured with a 400-4000 gallons per industrial gapmeter.
(b) The filtrate flowrate was determined by measuring the time required to fill a tank of
known volume. This flowrate, in conjunction with the cake output and the mud solids
contents of cake and of filtrate, enabled the retention efficiency to be calculated as
follows:

Retention Efficiency = x 100

= x 100
+

.
= x 100
. +.

Where M = Mud output (tons/hour)

F = Filtrate flowrate (tons/hour)
mM = Percent mud solids in mud
mF = Percent mud solids in filtrate
(c) Over the trial period, composite samples of filter feed, mud and filtrate were collected.
The following analyses were then carried out on these samples :
Filter feed percent fibre, percent mud solids.
Mud percent pol, percent water, percent fibre, percent mud solids.
Filtrate percent mud solids, pH.

Results

Retention Efficiency

In comparing the mud solids retention efficiencies obtained with the various feed
treatments, it was necessary to consider only those trials in which a similiar fibre ratio in filter feed
was obtained. The fibre ratios selected were 0.45 0.47 at plane creek and 0.6 0.62 at Millaquin,
these being normal working levels for the two mills. The average results obtained are given in Table
I.
 Table I Comparison of retention efficiencies

These results indicate that the highest retention efficiencies at each mill were obtained
when using flocculant plus lime. In the case of the plane creek trials , the improvement in retention
efficiency from 79.7 percent to 94.5 percent when using flocculant plus lime would result in a
reduction of about 16 percent in the mud solids loading on the clarifiers and filter station.

The use of either flocculant or lime alone also gave an appreciable improvement in retention
efficiency in each set of trials. It is unfortunately to differences in operating conditions, viz., feed
analysis, filter speed, bagacillo quality and secondary vacuum.

Washing Efficiency

The effect of wash water usage on percentage pol in cake in the plane creek trials is shown
in Figure I. A similiar set of cueves was obtained at Millaquin. A summary showing the effect of feed
treatment on percentage pol in mud when applying water at the rate of 150 percent on mud output
is shown in Table II.

Table II Effect of feed treatment on percentage pol in mud

The main conclusions to be drawn here are:

(a) The addition of flocculant and lime to filter feed resulted in a decrease of 0.5 0.7 in the
percentage pol in mud. This improvement in washing efficiency presumably resulted
from the formation of a more porous filter cake. This would appear to be supported by
 the reduction in the ratio water/ (fibre + mud solids) in cake which occurred when
adding flocculants and lime (see Appendix I)
(b) The use of flocculant alone also gave a reduction in mud pol. In the plane creek trials,
separan AP 273 used by itself gave similiar results to those obtained when lime was also
added with the flocculant. At Millaquin, Sedipur used alone was not quite as effective as
Sedipur plus lime.
(c) The addition of lime and no flocculant resulted in a decrease in percentage pol in mud,
but was not as effective as lime plus flocculant.

As mentioned previously, it is not possible to compare the results obtained with Separan AP
273 and Sedipur TF 2 due to differences in operating conditions at the two mills.

Pol Losses

In evaluating the pol losses which occur when adding flocculants and/or lime to filter feed, it
is necessary to take account of the long-term effects of any changes in retention efficiency. For
example, when adding flocculants there is an improvement in retention efficiency and the
accompanying decrease in the quantity of mud solids recirculated to process in filtrate will lower the
mud solids loading on the clarifiers and filter station. It will, therefore, be possible to reduce the rate
bagacillo addition and still maintain the same fibre ratio in filter feed. This lower fibre usage results
in a reduced mud output and hence a lower pol loss in mud.

To evaluate the pol losses which occur with the various feed treatments it is also necessary
to know:

(i) Average values for the ratio water/ (fibre + mud solids) in filter cake in cash case.

Table III The effect of flocculant and lime on pol mud solids ratio

(ii) The relationship between mud pol and water usage for each conditon. This information
has been obtained in these trials, and the procedure used in calculating pol losses is set
out in Appendix I. A summary of the results of these calculations is given in Table III
below.

At both mills, flocculant plus lime gave a lower pol/mud solids ratio than either flocculant or
lime alone. The use of flocculant also gave better results than lime in each case. The higher
pol/mud solids ratios obtained in the Millaqium trials resulted from the use of higher fibre
ratio in feed which produced a thicker filter cake with poorer washing characteristics.

Economics of Flocculant and Lime Usage

The calculation of the cost of adding flocculant and lime to filter feed is given in
Appendix III. The cost of adding flocculant was about 0.3 cents per ton cane and lime 0.2
cents per ton cane. This gives a combined cost of flocculant and lime addition of 0.5 cents
ton cane or $2500 for a 500,000 ton crop.

In Appendix IV the financial savings resulting from the lower pol/mud solids ratios
achieved when adding flocculants and lime have been calculated. These varied up to a
maximum of 5.2 cents per ton cane in the Millaquin trials where Sedipur and lime were
being used.

Using the information in Appendix III and IV, one may compare the economics of adding
flocculant and lime to filter feed. In these calculations it is assumed that.

Flocculant is added at the rate of 1 ppm on cane.

Lime addition is at a rate sufficient to raise the filtrate pH by 1.5 units.
Water addition is at the rate of 150 percent on mud.

The results of these calcilations are set out in Table IV. All costs and saving refer to a
crop of 500,000 tons cane and a mud solids loading of 0.6 percent on cane.

The above figures indicate that the maximum financial saving at each mill was obtained
when flocculant and lime was used. The addition of flocculant without lime gave a better
result than lime only. Experience this season has indicated that prolonged llime additon to
filter feed can lead to appreciable screen blinding, and for this reason the use of flocculant
alone may be the best proposition.

Table IV Costs and saving associated with flocculant and lime addition to filter feed
 Appendix I

Estimation of Pol Losses

It is desired to evaluate the pol losess which occured at Plane creek and Millaquin mills when
the filter feed was treated with flocculant and/or lime. In calculating these losses it is necessary to
take account of the drop in mud solids loading on the clarifiers and filter station which accompanies
an improvement in retention efficiecy. This lower mud solids loading will reduce the bagacillo
requirement to achieve a given fibre ratio in feed, and this in turn leads to a reduced mud output. By
comparing the average results obtained in trials with a similiar fibre ratio in feed, it is possible to
evaluate the pol losses with the various feed treatments.

Consider the average results obtained in the trials at Plane Creek where Separan AP 273 and
lime were added to the feed:

Retention efficiency = 94.5 %

Fibre ratio in feed = 0.46
Water / (fibre +mud solids) in cake = 3.714

Now, retention efficiency (R) = +
x 100
If we consider a mud solids loading on the factory of 100 units, as shown in Figure 2, then the output
of mud solids in cake must also be 100 units for the station to remain in balance.
100 100
R = 94.5 =
100+
Mud solids in filtrate = (10,000 9,450)/94.5
= 5.82

Mud solids in filter feed = 100.00 + 5.82 = 105.82

 Table V

FILTRATE

Mud solids = 5.82

FILTER STATION FILTER CAKE

Retention time = 94.5 %

Mud solids = 100 Efficiency Mud Solids = 100
Fibre = 46.68

Bagacillo
Fibre = 0.46 (100 + 5.82)
= 46.68

Fig.2 Mud solids and fibre balance over the filter station

At a fibre ratio of 0.46, fibre in

Filter feed = 0.46 x 105.82 = 48.68

Assuming no fibre passes into the filtrate, fibre in filter cake = 48.86
Water in cake = 3.714 x (Fibre + mud solids)
= 3.714 x ( 48.68 + 100)
= 552.20
Let the pol in cake =P

Then, at a juice purity of 80 percent, soluble solids in cake = P/0.80

= 1.25 P

Mud output = Mud solids + Fibre + Water + soluble solids

= 100 + 48.68 + 552.2 + 1.25 P
= 700.88 + 1.25 P

At a total water additon rate of 150 percent on filter cake, a pol of 2.03 % is obtained (see
Figure I)

2.03
=
700.88 + 1.25 100

Solving, P = 14.6

Pol /mud solids ratio in mud = 14.6 / 100

= 0.146

Similiar calculation for the order feed conditions give the results shown on Table V.

In each set of trials, flocculant plus lime gave a lower pol/mud solids ratio then either
flocculant or lime alone.

Appendix II

Lime requirements of filter feed

Several laboratory scale tests were conducted to determine the effect of lime addition to
filter feed on the pH of the resultant filtrate.

The procedure used was as follows:

(i) 500 gm filter feed and 300 gm wash water were were mixed and heated to 180F. These
quantities are in approximately the same proportion as in factory scale operations.
(ii) A small quantity (say 5 gm) of milk of lime was stirred into the mixture, which was then
filtered through a Buchner funnel fitted with a cooper filter screen.
(iii) The filtrate obtained was cooled to room temperature and its pH determined.
(iv) The moisture content of the milk of lime was determined and the hydrated lime usage
calculated.
(v) The test was repeated using varying quantities of milk of lime.

The results obtained are shown graphically in figure 3. The hydrated lime addition required
to raise the filtrate pH by 1.5 units, say from 7.0 to 8.5 for a normal mud, was of the order 0.09-0.12
percent on filter feed or about 0.01 percent on cane. This represents a usage rate of about 15
percent of that normally required for juice clarification. However, with low pH mud which had been
held in storage over a weekend shutdown, the lime requirement to raise the filtrate pH to 8.5 was 4
to times as high as the previous figures. However, these low pH conditions normally only last for a
few hours after startup, so should not have much influence on overall lime usage.

The effect of lime addition to filtrate on pH is shown in figure 4. The lime requirement to
raise the filtrate by 1.5 units from say 7.0 to 8.5 was only 0.020-0.025 percent by weight, i.e., some
0.003 percent on cane. This suggests that when one adds lime to filter feed, only about 30 percent of
the lime passes into the filtrate, while the remainder passes out of the system in the filter cake. The
lime which does pass into the filtrate will, of course, reduce the lime demand for juice clarification
by a similiar amount. The nett incrase in lime demand to raise the filtrate pH by 1.5 units is therefore
of the order 0.007 percent on cane.

Appendix III

The Cost of Flocculant and Lime Usage

(a) Flocculant Usage

 At an addition rate of 1 ppm on cane, the total flocculant requirement for a crop of 500,000
tons would be 500,000 x 2240 x 10-6 lb, i.e., 1120 lb
The total cost when using Separan AP 273 at $1.38 per lb would therefore be $1546 or 0.31
cents per ton cane.
For Sedipur TF 2 at $1.30 per lb the total cost would be $1456 or 0.29 cents per ton cane.
The average cost of flocculant usage is therefore about 0.3 cents per ton cane.
(b) Lime Usage
The pH changes which occurred when milk of lime was added to filter feed and filtrate have
been described in Appendix II. The hydrated lime requirements to raise the filtrate pH by say 1.5
units was of the order of 0.1 percent on filter feed or 0.01 percent on cane. However, approx. 30
percent of this lime passes into the filtrate and this reduces the lime demand for clarification by a
corresponding amount. The nett increase in lime usage is thus about 0.007 percent on cane or 35
tons for a 500,000 ton crop. Assuming an average lime price of $30 per ton, the total cost of lime
used over the season would be $1050 or 0.21 cents per ton cane.

Table VI Value of additional pol recovery

Appendix IV

Financial Savings Achieved by Reducing Pol Losses

Consider a mill crushing 500,000 tons cane per year and having a mud solids loading of 0.6
percent on cane ,i.e., 3,000 tons mud solids per year.
The trials carried out at Plane Creek indicated that when lime and Separan AP 273 were
added to filter feed, the pol/mud solids ratio in filter cake fell from 0.204 to 0.146. The additional pol
recovered would therefore be 3000 x (0.204-0.146) tons per year, i.e., 174 tons pol per year.
The percentage pol recovery over the pan station is given by S.J.M. formula.
Assuming a concervative average sugar price of $80 per ton, the value of this additional
sugar recovered would be $80 x 158, i.e., $12,640 or 2.53 cents per ton cane for full aquisition.
Similiar calculations have been carried out for the various other feed treatments, and the
results are summarized in the following table:
The results obtained at Plane Creek are not directly comparable with those obtained at
Millaquin because the fibre ratio in filter ratio in filter feed was quite different at the two mills.
Furthermore, other operating conditions such as filter speed and secondary vacuum were not the
same in the two sets of trials. In each case, however, flocculant plus lime gave greater financial
savings than either flocculant or lime alone.