Development & Investigation of wastewater treatment ...
Transcript of Development & Investigation of wastewater treatment ...
PILLS Final Conference19th / 20th September 2012
Development & Investigation of
wastewater treatment technologies
at local sourcesat local sources
Sven Lyko, Emschergenossenschaft
Christian Köhler, Centre de Recherche Henri Tudor
(on behalf of the PILLS partners)
Outline
• Applied technologies (pilot plants)
• Removal efficiency and operational performance
• MBR
• O3 (+H2O2)
• UV/TiO2, UV/H2O2
• Activated Carbon (GAC, PAC)
• Energy consumption
• Costs
• Key messages
Overview of the applied technologies
Conventional WWTPs
PILLS pilots MBRAdvanced
Treatment
Advanced
Treatment
Membrane filtration Oxidation processesAdsorption(Activated carbon)
Ultrafiltration /
Reverse osmosis
� Ozonation� Powdered activated
carbon
�Advanced oxidation processes
(UV/TiO2, UV/H2O2,, O3/H2O2)
� Granulated activated
carbon filtration
Illustrating the range:
Over pilot scale...
From lab scale...
To full scale.
Treated Wastewater > 80,000 m³
No. Samples > 3,000
Pre-treatment Advanced Treatment Post Treatment
GAC filter
PAC reactorSandfilter
Ultrafiltration
Investigated pilot plants
MBR
Ozonation (+H2O2)
UV/TiO2/H2O2
Sandfilter
GAC filter
Moving bed BR
Process performance of the MBR
MLSS
g/L
SRT
d
HRT
h
F/M
kgCOD/kgMLSS/d
T
C
LP
L/m²/h/bar
DE 10 249 60 0.040 26 170
9
Venditti, S., Köhler, C., Arenz-Leufen, M., O'Nagy, O., Cornelissen, A., Klepiszewski, K., 2011. Conference proceedings - Membrane bioreactor process as pre-treatment for hospital effluents, 8th IWA Leading-Edge Conference on Water and Wastewater Technologies, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
DE 10 249 60 0.040 26 170
NL 10 <180 53 0.073 19
LU 10-13 30-40 8 0.08-0.10 18 148 - 100
CH 2 30-50 32 0.06-0.10 29
MBR effluent quality
Effluent DE NL CH LU
COD mg/L 31 23 30 27
DOC mg/L 11.0 8.7 7.0
Ptot mg/L 2.0 9.3 5.3
N mg/L 3.3 53.0 3.8 (NH +NO ) 17.0
10
• MBR with excellent effluent quality due to biochemical processes (C-, N-, (P-)
Elimination) and high MLSS retention efficiency
• Disinfection and bathing water quality
• Suitable pre-treatment step for advanced technologies
Ntot mg/L 3.3 53.0 3.8 (NH4+NOx) 17.0
Pharmaceuticals removal by MBR
DE
%
NL
%
CH
%
LU
%
n=6 n=6 n=3 n=2
Diclofenac 18 35 ±21 -5 ± 3 44
Naproxen 90 97 ±2 n.a. 34
Carbamazepine -29 -63±73 -6 ± 12 10
Atenolol 94 89±6 99 ± 1 80
Bezafibrate 95 98 >91 n.a.
Lidocaine n.a. 79 ±21 56 ± 13 20
Ciprofloxacin n.a. 79 ±7 51 ± 13 -3
Clarithromycin 98 34 ±43 50 ± 12 50
Sulfamethaxozole 13 85 ±11 7 ± 57 -76
Sulfamethaxozole&N4-
Acetylsulfamethoxazolen.a. n.a. 36 ± 28 91
Erythromycin 90 -3 ±82 <60 >98
Diatrizoate -12 -460±800 -5 ± 16 n.a.
Iopamidol 31 n.a. -29 ± 218 n.a.
Iopromide 38 n.a. 31 ± 2 n.a.
Cyclosphosphamide n.a. 26 ±19 <20 13
Ifosfamide n.a. -780±1200 <LOD <LOQ
≥ 80 Inconsistent ≤ 50
NSAIDs in effluent of the advanced
treatment
2,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
conc. (ug/L)
Ibuprofen
Diclofenac
Indometacin
Naproxen
n = 7
12
0,05 0,02 0,020,10
0,82
<LOQ <LOQ <LOQ
0,026 <LOQ <LOQ0,00
0,50
1,00
MBR effluent MBR + 5mg O3/L MBR + 20 mgPAC/L + SF
Nafo, I. et al., 2012. Full-scale plant for the elimination of pharmaceuticals in hospital wastewater – Comparison of advanced treatment technologies. 16th International EWA Symposium Sustainable Wastewater Management - New solutions for new problems, Munich, Germany.
Ozone
- Strong chemical oxidant
- Reacts directly and indirectly
- Can be combined with H2O2 � AOP
Dose
mg/L
HRT
min
Dose
gO3/gDOC
DE 5 30 0.45
source: www.lenntech.com
DE 5 30 0.45
NL 13 40 1.50
LU 6-15 6-16 0.24-1.28
CH 4-7 10-30 0.60-1.10
Pharmaceuticlas transformation by
ozonation
DE%
NL%
CH%
CH%
LU%
g O3/g DOC 0.45 1 1.08 0.64 1.28
Diclofenac >95 99.7 100 100 99
Naproxen >60 90 n.a. n.a. >88
Carbamazepine 88 99,7 >99 >99 >99
Atenolol >17 97 >23 >23 >95
Bezafibrate >57 n.a. 87 n.a. n.a.
Lidocaine n.a. 99 >98 >98 >99Lidocaine n.a. 99 >98 >98 >99
Ciprofloxacin n.a. 99.9 100 100 91
Clarithromycin 80 n.a. 100 100 >97
Sulfamethaxozole 97 99 99 96 >99
Erythromycin1) >90 n.a. >93 >93 >33
Diatrizoate 21 45-60 16 7 n.a.
Iopamidol 43 n.a. 55 31 n.a.
Iopromide 0 n.a. 60 37 n.a.
Cyclosphosphamide n.a. 78-85 57 33 58
Ifosfamide n.a. 80-90 62 20 n.a.
≥ 80 50 - 80 ≤ 50
Ozone - dosage
- O3 reasonable dosage: 0.5 – 1.0 gO3/gDOC
- Depending on wastewater composition (e.g. bulk compounds)
- No mineralisation – Formation of by-products
0.20
0.25
7.20
7.40
DOC UV254 a) b)
60
80
100
Re
mo
va
l ra
te [
%]
0.24 gO3/gDOC 0.48 gO3/gDOC 1.28 gO3/gDOC
5
6
7
TOC (mg/L) DOC (mg/L)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
6.00
6.20
6.40
6.60
6.80
7.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
UV
-25
4 (
nm
)
DO
C
(mg
l-1
)
Residence time (min)
0
20
40
60
Re
mo
va
l ra
te [
%]
10 mg/L ozone, 1.8 g ozone / g DOC
Christa S. McArdell, Lubomira Kovalova, Hansruedi Siegrist, 2011, Input and Elimination of Pharmaceuticals and Disinfectants from Hospital Wastewater - final report -, Dept. of Environmental Chemistry and Dept. of Process Engineering, Eawag, Dübendorf
Venditti, S., Arenz-Leufen, M., Köhler, C., Klepiszewski, K., Cornelissen, A., 2012. Treatment of pharmaceutical wastewater by O3 and O3/H2O2 processes: a pilot scale study in Luxembourg, in: IWA (Ed.), Conference ecoSTP - EcoTechnologies for Wastewater Treatment. IWA, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
0
1
2
3
4
MBR permeate After ozonation After biofilter
Pharmaceuticals transformation by
UV/H2O2/TiO2
NL CH CH LU LU LU LU
Medium Pressure/
Low PressureMP LP LP LP LP MP MP
UV/H2O2 UV/TiO2 UV UV UV/H2O2 UV UV/H2O2
Fluence (J/m2) 6440 2754 7425 29700 29700 101250 101250
H2O2 (g/L) - - - - 1.1 - 1.1
Fluence
J/m²
HRT
s
H2O2
mg/L
TiO2
DE - - - -
NL 6,440 15 5-15 -
LU 7,425–101,250 18-71 0-1.1 -
CH 800-7,200 18-162 fibre
Diclofenac 97 90 >98 >99 97 >99 >99
Naproxen 50 n.a. n.a. n.a. >94 n.a. n.a.
Carbamazepine n.a. 2 1 21 94 81 97
Atenolol 23-50 0 0 <LOQ 89 >84 <LOQ
Bezafibrate 25 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Lidocaine -86 2 5 21 87 83 99
Ciprofloxacin 72 35 57 n.a. 93 n.a. n.a.
Clarithromycin 17 7 14 7 85 84 >99
Sulfamethaxozole 48 50 85 79 82 >98 >99
Erythromycin*1) 21 0 10 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Diatrizoate 32-58 73 96 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Iopamidol n.a. 41 92 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Iopromide n.a. 63 92 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Cyclosphospham. 9 3 0 -3 70 58 >75
Ifosfamide 3-15 0 n.a. <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ
≥ 80 > 30 < 80 ≤ 30
UV + 1.1 mg/L H2O2 – Pharmaceuticals
removal vs. energy demand
Köhler, C., Venditti, S., Igos, E., Klepiszewski, K., Benetto, E., Cornelissen, A., 2012. Elimination of pharmaceutical residues in biologically pre-
treated hospital wastewater using advanced UV irradiation technology: A comparative assessment. HAZMAT in press.
Pharmaceuticals removal by activated
carbon
Dose
mg/L
HRT
min
EBCT
min
Size
mm
DE 20 30
NL - - 60 0.5-1.5
LU - - - -
DE%
NL%
CH%
CH%
PAC-SF GAC PAC-UF PAC-UF
dosage PAC (mg/L) 20 - 23 43
Naproxen >54 >93 n.a. n.a.
Diclofenac 59 98 98 99
Lidocaine n.a. >98 100 100
Cyclosphosphamide n.a. >97 73 >73CH 8-43 60
„Accumulating of dissolved
compounds“
Cyclosphosphamide n.a. >97 73 >73
Ifosfamide n.a. >97 >60 >60
Ciprofloxacin n.a. >99 >99 >99
Clarithromycin >80 >99 100 100
Erythromycin1) >90 >99 >88 >88
Sulfamethaxozole 12 >96 33 62
Diatrizoate 1 98 14 18
Iopamidol 23 n.a. 69 80
Iopromide 0 n.a. 85 91
Carbamazepine >72 98 99 100
Bezafibrate >59 n.a. >86 >86
Atenolol >7 >97 >88 >88
≥ 80 > 30 < 80 ≤ 30
Energy consumption
Pre treatment
kWh/m³
Bioreactor
kWh/m³
Membranes
kWh/m³
Ozonation
kWh/m³
Activated carbon
kWh/m³
UV
kWh/m³
Air treatment
kWh/m³
NL 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.9* 0.2 (GAC) 0.50 - 1.07 0.1
CH 0.1-0.2CH 0.1-0.2
LU 0.5 1
DE 0.3 0.9 0.5* 0.45 (PAC-SF) 2**
GAC: Granular activated carbon filtration; PAC-SF: Powdered activated carbon and sand filtration
* Oxygen generation on-site from ambient air; ** Exhaust air treatment by Photoionisation incl. heating
Cost considerations
MBR
EUR/m³
GAC
EUR/m³
O3
EUR/m³
UV/H2O2
EUR/m³
Investment cost 3.25 0.10 0.15 0.30
Variable cost 1.45 0.20 0.10 0.20
Total cost 4.70 0.30 0.30 0.50
Key messages
• Decentralized treatment of pharmaceuticals concentrated wastewater was successfully demonstrated
• MBR is a suitable pre-treatment step � C-, N-, (P-) removal and part of pharmaceuticals
• Advanced treatment options showed good pharmaceuticals removal performance performance
• Regarding energy demand and costs, O3 and activated carbon have advantages (not considering process handling and local requirements)
• Advanced treatments showed lower removal rates for some substances like X-ray contrast media
• Full-scale plants � stable process operation
24
Thank to all the supporters of the PILLS project
www.pills-project.eu
Dr. Jochen Stemplewski and Dr. Emanuel Grün, Kirsten Adamczak, Can Aksüt, Klaus Baumers, Eva Böhling, Carsten Bräuer, Bernhard Hehn, Dirk Hellmich, Eberhard
Holtmeier, Till Möller, Issa Nafo, Ekkehard Pfeiffer, Ulrike Raasch, Prof. Burkhard Teichgräber, Michael Walkstein, Ingo Werner, Daniel Wischniewski, Peter Weingarten and
Frank Netz (Marienhospital Gelsenkirchen) Herr Lange, Regina Di Febo, Julianne Joseph (Municipality of Gelsenkirchen, Referat Umwelt), Jörg Alda, Dietmar Loch, Andreas
Schiffers (Tutthas & Meyer Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH), Christian Högel, Susanne Zander-Hauck, Harald Jakobs, Hans-Dietrich Eschke, Joanna Will (joint laboratory of
Ruhrverband, Emschergenossenschaft and Lippeverband), Monika Hammers-Wirtz (gaiac at the RWTH Aachen University), Axel Magdeburg (BiK Frankfurt), Jochen Türk (IUTA
Duisburg), Prof. Elke Dopp, Jessica Richard (IWW Mülheim), Herman Evenblij, Hans Huijsman, Dirk Kievit, Jan Luijten, Warry Meuleman, Arjan de Mink, Mirabella Mulder
(Mirabella Mulder Waste Water Management), Karl Borger (Vitens), Martijn Tas (Vitens), Jacques van Paassen (Vitens), Evert-Jan van den Brandhof (RIVM), Wilko Verweij
(RIVM), Marja Woutersen (RIVM), Erik Steenbergen (RIVM), Nico Wortel (Pharmafilter) and the Isala Clinics, Waterboard Groot Salland, Innovatieprogramma KRW, Province
Overijssel, the Municipality Zwolle, Vitens, STOWA., Alain Arend, Martina Arenz, Emmanuelle Becker, Enrico Benetto, Alex Cornelissen, Melanie Guiton, Elorri Igos, Collins Jury,
Kai Klepiszewski, Guy Kneip, Christian Köhler, Oliver O’Nagy, Paul Schosseler, Silvia Venditti, Ministry of higher Education and Research, Daniel Cardao, Henri Hinterscheid,
Marcel Klesen, André Weidenhaupt, Jean-Paul Lickes, Luc Zwank, Prof. Johannes Pinnekamp, Silvio Beier, Christopher Keysers, David Montag
Silvio Canonica, Andreas Eggmann (Hospital Baden), Jack Eugster, Cornelia Kienle (Ecotox Center, Eawag/EPFL), Lubomira Kovalova, Judit Lienert, Christa S. McArdell,
Stefan Kötzsch (UMik, Eawag), Ruedi Moser (Hunziker Betatech AG), Michael Schärer (FOEN), Hansruedi Siegrist, Michael Thomann (Holinger AG, Liestal), Urs von Gunten,
Heinz Wernli (Hospital Baden), Federal Office for the Environment, Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research (SER)/COST Cantons AG, BE, BL, GE, SG, SH, SO, SZ,
TG, VD, ZH; Prof. A. Reller, University of Augsburg, Kantonsspital Baden, Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE), Colin Dalglish, Karin Helwig, Colin Andrew Hunter,
JiaQian Jiang, John MacLachlan, Moyra McNaughtan, Ole Pahl, Joanne Roberts, Dainis Sudmalis, Zhengwei Zhou, Bill Dickie, Bill Glass, Philip Grieve, Hugh Hamill, Victoria
Hepworth, Jed Mather, Kevin Milne, Jenny Webb, Mark Heggie, Andrew Rawlins, Ian Ridgway, Ashley Roberts, Scottish Water, Ken Allinson, Brian Ellor, Mark Haffey, Archie
Johnston, Harry Keddie, Willie Lindsay, George O’Sullivan, Stuart Pheasant, Adam Zyndul, Olivier Barraud, Magali Casellas, Christophe Dagot, Corinne Maftah, Marie-Cécile
Ploy, Thibault Stalder, Dupuytren Hospital, the city of Limoges, Joint Technical Secretariat of the NWE Interreg programme: Daniel von Hugo, Isabelle Lecroart , Scientific Board
members: Florian Keil, Thomas Schwartz (KIT Karlsruhe), Thomas Steger-Hartmann (Bayer Health Care) and Pim de Voogt (IBED University of Amsterdam).
… and you for your attention!