Technical Advisory Group Meeting Atlantic Universitylabees.civil.fau.edu/Meeroff-TAG-minutes-01-30-2015-with slides.pdf · Technical Advisory Group Meeting ... Langelier Saturation

Technical Advisory Group Meeting

Florida Atlantic University Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

DATE: Friday, January 30, 2015

TIME: 12:00 noon to 1:50 pm

WHERE: CM Building (22), Room 130 (Studio 1)

777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431

MEETING AGENDA 12:00 – 12:10 pm Opening Address and Introduction of Participants D. Meeroff12:10 – 12:40 pm Leachate Collection System Clogging J. Dacey

A. Harris

D. Purdy 12:40 –1:10 pm Safe Discharge of Landfill Leachate to the Environment J. Lakner1:10 –1:40 pm Groundwater Circulation Well Experiments A. Albasri1:40 –1:50 pm Open Forum Participants1:50 pm Adjourn, Thank You D. Meeroff

Attendance: Denys Purdy, Justin Dacey, Alyssa Harris , Tim Vinson, Ahmed Albasri, Joseph Lakner,

Dan Meeroff, Megan Matson, Bishow Nath Shaha, Lisandre Meyer, Jeff Roccapriore, Craig Ash,

Richard Meyers, Ravi Kadambala, Ron Schultz, Owrang Kashef

1. Opening address by D. Meeroff followed by introduction of the group members and participants (12:05

pm)

2. J. Dacey gave a presentation on the Flowmark antiscaling system. Essentially, the device doubled the

particulate calcium compared to upstream levels. Then he described the dilution system for scaling

control and showed data to support the hypothesis that the compost industrial supply well’s

groundwater improved the calcium carbonate precipitation potential of leachate as measured by the

Langelier Saturation Index and the Ryznar Index. Then he described the upcoming flowmark side‐by‐

side experiment. The first question was about the impact of the dilution and leachate flows vs. rainfall.

Dr. Meeroff responded that this work is currently ongoing. Dr. Kadambala asked for details how the

Flowmark system works, what pipe size, what other strategies did you test, what are the flows? J.

Roccapriore asked about the pipe lengths, and revealed that Monarch Hill has experienced some

calcium carbonate scaling in its leachate collection system, which has essentially no gravity lines

because it is pumped to a force main directly from the hill.

3. A. Harris gave a presentation on her leachate aeration tests, crystal formation, and vibration table

experiments. Then she showed her black sludge formation data. The stationary samples had much finer

particles compared to the rotated and aerated samples that had larger agglomerated flocs. She showed

micrographs of two different organisms growing in the sludge and then mentioned new experiments

which contrast the effect of HDPE v. PP to see if there are surface charge interactions with the pipe

material itself that promote rock formation. In addition, she plans to heat the leachate to see the effect of

temperature. Next she presented her results of the rubber‐like substance (“blob”). She tested loss on

ignition (86%, which revealed a dominant organic content), bleach reaction (which revealed

microorganisms growing on the surface), acid reaction (which revealed calcium carbonate

effervescence), X‐ray diffraction (which revealed chloride salts of ammonium, sodium, and potassium),

and X‐ray fluorescence (which revealed calcite). Next she presented her work on testing the cationic

polymer Clarifloc used by the wastewater treatment plant that delivers biosolids to the landfill. It was

hypothesized that the polymer may play a role in the blob formation. She tested the polymer with lime

and crushed drywall, and was planning to test with leachate, ash, and biosolids too. J. Roccapriore

mentioned that Waste Management does not experience any intensive clogging and operates an 8‐inch

forcemain flowing full with very few gravity lines in the system. They have never encountered any

rubber‐like substance. Also they do not have a true ash monofill but do use ash for daily cover. He

mentioned that Broward County operates an ash monofill and recommended to ask them if they

experience anything like this. R. Meyers replied that he would be more than happy to supply leachate

and ash samples for the experiments. C. Ash mentioned that Waste Management operates an ash

monofill in Miami‐Dade but to his knowledge they do not experience any similar problems. Dr.

Bloetscher asked about the pH acting in the opposite way as he would expect after aeration. Dr. Meeroff

said that the observation was verified several times and is the basis of University of Florida doctoral

candidate, Kevin Kohn’s dissertation on carbon dioxide stripping for scaling control.

4. J. Lakner presented his work on advanced oxidation of leachate from partially closed landfill leachates

for beneficial reuse of this water as a resource. He presented water volumes and water quality data.

Then he explained how the processes work, and then he presented pilot testing results. First he verified

the reaction mechanism, performed a UV scan to determine the maximum absorbance, then he ran tests

to determine the effect of catalyst aids, but none of the metals tested performed better than UV/TiO2,

and only zinc did not inhibit the reaction. Then he showed results using different lamps and reactor

configurations. Comparing the lamp power of the two types of lamps in different wavelength regimes,

they were found to have similar output. The flow through reactor configuration has about 20x more

power density and reaction detention time compared to the falling film reactor but light penetration is

an issue. Next he presented preliminary results from the critical orifice advanced oxidation unit. With

diluted leachate, the unit increased alkalinity, decreased pH, removed 70% of COD in just 20 minutes,

but increased TDS. It was recommended to test the unit as a pretreatment or polishing step to

photocatalytic oxidation. J. Roccapriore asked if the fixed volume tested in 8 hours could be scaled up to

help offset the surcharge to a wastewater treatment plant. Safe discharge for onsite use is the goal of this

project to be able to use for irrigation for dust control is an option at Monarch Hill. Previous work done

by F. Youngman determined 44 hours treatment required for Monarch Hill leachate to meet the COD

limit. At 24 hours detention, the process is cost effective, so the goal is to reduce the time required for

treatment. C. Ash commented that this is a big concern for 50,000‐100,000 gallons per day of leachate

generated at these large facilities. More disposal options are needed. Dr. Bloetscher mentioned the

orifice process increased the pH and alkalinity after superoxide formation in the microbubbles. This

needs to be investigated and experiments are being prepared. T. Vinson asked for clarification on the

purpose of the absorbance tests, and J. Lakner described that the flow through experiments do not

create a thin film, so UV light penetration is important because of the 2‐inch thick bulk solution. So this

is why those absorbance tests tried to quantify the light penetration or shadow effect of titanium

dioxide dose. Dr. Kadambala mentioned previous research conducted at UF on R/O pretreatment

strategies for leachate recirculation. T. Vinson mentioned that Tim Townsend could provide these

results. C. Ash mentioned that the Medley Landfill uses a biological pretreatment process primarily for

ammonia removal and arsenic, but the facility is now going to deepwell injection.

5. A. Albasri presented his fourth phase of work on iron removal from the subsurface using groundwater

circulation well technology. He is now using a 32‐gallon model with 3 monitoring wells to measure the

radius of influence. He loaded the system for several months to create a spiked 10‐50 mg/L iron

groundwater/soil. On 01/19/2015, he turned on the GCW system and as of 01/22/2015, no removal of

iron has been found yet. Three days’ worth of results is not enough to show any trend. Albasri is

worried about ferric iron plugging the system. Dr. Bloetscher pointed out that bleach will control iron

bacteria plugging. T. Vinson recommended that in the real world, you would just drill more wells and

then he mentioned some work from UF regarding interceptor trenches with media. Dr. Bloetscher

mentioned that wells will clog with iron bacteria and sloughing will create clogging in the subsurface

and recommended to periodically use some sort of filtration (sand separator), which is what is used in

municipal supply wells.

6. Dr. Meeroff thanked all of the participants, and the meeting was adjourned at 1:50 pm.

1

Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015

Technical Advisory Group Meeting

1. “Sustainable Management of Pollutants Underneath Landfills”

2. “Onsite Treatment of Leachate Using Energized Processes”

Daniel E. Meeroff, Ph.D.Department of Civil, Environmental & Geomatics Engineering

Laboratories for Engineered Environmental Solutions


Agenda

1. Introductions/Opening Remarks

2. Evaluation of Leachate Clogging

3. Photocatalytic Oxidation Studies

4. Circulation Well Experiments

Dr. Meeroff

Dacey/Harris

Lakner

Albasri

5. User Input/Open Forum Everyone


http://labees.civil.fau.edu/leachate


Current Projects• "Critical Examination of Leachate Collection

Systems Clogging at SWA Disposal Facilities"

• "Safe Discharge of Landfill Leachate to the Environment"

• "Sustainable Management of Pollutants Underneath Landfills"

• "Assessing Options for On-site Leachate and Groundwater Management Strategies at Florida Landfills“

• "Investigation of Effective Odor Control Strategies"


Introductions


“Critical Examination of Leachate Collection System Clogging”

2

Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015FAU Boca Raton, FL ▪ January 30, 2015

Florida Atlantic UniversityCollege of Engineering & Computer Science

“Effects of Flowmark Water Treatment System and Dilution Water in Leachate

Collection System”

Justin DaceyDepartment of Civil, Environmental & Geomatics Engineering


Agenda• FlowMark Water Treatment System

• FlowMark Device Overview• Placement in Leachate Collection System

• FlowMark Device Results• Soluble Calcium v. Total Calcium

• Leachate Dilution Using Industrial Well Water• Dilution Water System Overview• Water Quality After Dilution

• Langlier Index

• Ryznar Index

• Next Steps

FlowMark Water Treatment System

FlowMark (Electronic Pulsed Power)Leachatewatertreatment.com

FlowMark Device Overview

• Electrically Generated Catalytic Effect

• Claims to Help Precipitate Microscopic Seed Crystals of CaCO3

• Intended to Prevent Mineral Scale Accumulation

• Installed in Leachate Collection System at Manhole 11 in April 2014

FlowMark and Sampling Locations

1

Cell 13

1198

5

A

13

Cell 11

Cell 9

Cell 8

Cell 5

Cell 1Cell 2

Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 10 Cell 12 Cell 14

FlowMark in Manhole 11Leachate Flow

3

FlowMark In Action at Manhole 11 Particulate Calcium (>45μm) with FlowMark

Parameter UnitsUpstream

(Manhole 11)Downstream (Manhole 5)

pH 7.20 7.43

Alkalinitymg/L as CaCO3 3850 3660

Ca (Total)mg/L as CaCO3 5800 2200

Ca (Dissolved)

mg/L as CaCO3 4700 1400

19.0% 36.4%Percent Particulate:

FlowMark Device Results

• Appears to Aid Particulate Formation

• Further Testing Required

• Short Circuiting Observed around FlowMarkin Manhole

• Untreated Leachate Introduced to Flow from Landfill Cells Downstream

Leachate Dilution with Industrial

Supply Well Water

Dilution Water System Overview

• Water Sourced from Composting Industrial Supply Wells On-Site

• Intended to Reduce Scale Formation Potential by Dilution of Leachate

• Decrease Langlier Saturation Index (LSI)

• Increase Ryznar Index (RI)

• Installed into Leachate Collection System at Manhole 11 in May 2014

Dilution Water Location

Cell 13

11985 13

Cell 11

Cell 9

Cell 8

Cell 5

Cell 1Cell 2

Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 10 Cell 12 Cell 14

Compost Well Dilution Water Leachate Flow

4

Dilution Water in Manhole 11 Water Quality After Dilution

• Water Quality• Alk.: 330 - 400 mg/L as CaCO3

• Calcium: 360 – 450 mg/L• pH: 6.5 – 7.3• TDS: 590 – 2200 mg/L• Temperature: 25 – 29 °C• LSI: -0.2 - +0.5• RI: 6.2 – 7.0

• Water Quality• Alk.: 330 - 9700 mg/L as CaCO3

• Calcium: 1,000 – 26,000 mg/L• pH: 6.1 – 7.8• TDS: 7,100 – 69,000 mg/L• Temperature: 25 – 36 °C• LSI: +1.0 - +2.7• RI: 2.2 – 6.5

Composting Industrial Supply Wells

Leachate Composite: Manholes 5, 8, 9, 11, and 13

Saturation Indices, Before Dilution

RI = 2pHsat– pHobs

Heavy ScaleRI < 5.5

Some Scale5.5<RI<6.2

Non-Scale

Forming6.2<RI<6.8

Corrosive6.8<RI<8.

5

Very Corrosive

RI>8.5

Langelier Saturation Index (LSI) Ryznar Index (RI)

LSI = pHobs – pHsat

Under-saturated

LSI < –0.4

Neutral–0.4 < LSI < +0.4

Super-saturated

LSI > +0.5

Leachate

LSI Target = +0.4 RI Target = 6.0

Compost Wells

Compost Wells

Saturation Indices, After Dilution

RI = 2pHsat– pHobs

Heavy ScaleRI < 5.5

Some Scale5.5<RI<6.2

Non-Scale

Forming6.2<RI<6.8

Corrosive6.8<RI<8.

5

Very Corrosive

RI>8.5

Langelier Saturation Index (LSI) Ryznar Index (RI)

LSI = pHobs – pHsat

Under-saturated

LSI < –0.4

Neutral–0.4 < LSI < +0.4

Super-saturated

LSI > +0.5

Leachate

LSI Target = +0.4 RI Target = 6.0

Compost Wells

Compost Wells

Dilution Water Results

• Leachate LSI and RI Improved

• LSI Range Extends into Neutral

• RI Range Extends into Non-Scale Forming

• CISW Water Different Than Expected

• Higher LSI

• Lower RI

Operational Control• Need to be able to adjust the dilution water based on

appropriate conditions (realtime monitoring)• pH, Temperature, TDS, Alkalinity, Calcium, Flowrate

• Issues• pH, TDS probes will not work

• Alkalinity/Calcium require titrations

• Temperature and flowrate are highly variable and not correlated

5

Questions• Seed crystals form and flow until they settle out

somewhere downstream• What are the water quality impacts downstream vs.

upstream?• Are we cleaning existing clogs?• What are the power requirements for a full scale

system?• What are the properties of this loose sludge material?• Where will it collect? What if the material collects in

the deepwell?• What is the frequency of pumping out this material?

Next Steps• Set up FlowMark On/Off Direct Comparison

• Currently Being Designed

• Eliminate Short-Circuiting Around Unit

• Eliminate Leachate from Other Cells Interfering with Comparison

• Evaluate Dilution Calculations with New Water Quality Data


Aeration Experiment



Aeration TestspH v. time Turbidity v. time

6.8

7.0

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8.0

8.2

0 50 100

pH

Elapsed Time (minutes)

Aerated

Control

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 50 100

Turb

idit

y (N

TU

)

Elapsed Time (minutes)

Aerated

Control


6



Sample: Cell 8 Lat 3March 6 2014”A”

Cell 8 Lat 3March 6 2014”B”

Cell 8 Lat 3March 6 2014“C”

Cell 8 Lat 3March 6 2014”D”

Amount of Leachate

100ml 100ml 100ml 100ml

Aerated? Aerated (1hr 20 min, ~+1pH)

Aerated(1hr 20 min, ~+1pH)

Non-Aerated Non-Aerated

Period of rotation

10.55s/5=2.11sSet 450

Stationary 10.68s/5=2.14sSet 450

Stationary

InitialWeight

95.96g 97.96g 99.16g 99.60g

Final Weight

(5 days)

5.31g 5.73g 5.79g 4.42g

Initial pH: 7.40 7.45 7.41 7.44

pH After Aeration

8.54 8.60 N/A N/A

Initial 82.8 84.9 85.6 85.9



Leachate After 2 days

Aerated and Rotated Non-Aerated and Rotated


Leachate after 2 days

Aerated and Stationary Non- Aerated and Stationary


After 5 Days

Aerated and Rotated Non-Aerated Rotated

7


After 5 Days StationaryAerated Non-Aerated


Summary• The stationary samples did not appear to form

separate substances• Stationary samples created fine particles

• The rotation seems to create larger particles


Aerated and Rotated Sample Dark Substance


400xDark Substance


4000xDark Substance Technical Advisory Group Meeting

FAU ▪ January 30, 2015

Next Steps• Currently running the experiment with HDPE

containers• Results in progress

• Plan to use an immersion heater to increase the temperature of the leachate

• Waiting for results from UF to see the composition of solids formed

8



“Blob” from December 2014

• Collected from SWA Leachate collection system

• Dark brown semi-solid material

• Rubber-like

• Tests:• Loss on Ignition

• Reaction to Bleach

• Reaction to Acid

• UF tested XRF and XRD


Loss on Ignition

Loss on Ignition: 86%Technical Advisory Group Meeting


Bleach and Acid Reaction Tests:

A B C DBleach 10% Bleach 1M HCl 1M HNO3


(A) Bleach

Initial Final


(B) 10% Bleach

Initial Final

9


After soaking in bleach for several days


(C) 1M HCl

Initial Final


(D) 1M HNO3

FinalInitial


XRF Data (UF)



Possible Explanations

• Possibility of the blobs due to disposal of biosolids at the landfill

• Polymers could leach out of the biosolids after they had been placed in the landfill

• Then move with the leachate into the LCS and then reform as a semi-solid at a downstream point in the LCS

10


Coagulation Polymer: Clarifloc• Cationic water-soluble polymer in emulsion


Clarifloc with CaO (Lime)0.5 gram of CaO ~1 gram of CaO


Clarifloc with CaSO4 (Dry wall)~0.5g (CaSO4) ~1g (CaSO4)


Next Steps• Results in progress

• Observe the samples over time• Differences in consistency

• Separation (Does the polymer hold)?

• Visual observations

• What happens if we mix leachate with these samples?

• Measure the pH


Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste ManagementJanuary 30, 2014


“Safe Discharge of Landfill Leachate to the Environment”

Joseph Lakner



Problem Statement• In South Florida, several landfills combine leachate

for disposal• Active leachate

• Mature leachate

• Partially closed landfill leachate

• The partially closed landfill leachate can account for 10-25% of the overall leachate flow• 20,000 – 200,000 gpd

11


Problem Statement

• Current disposal methods for Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach is deep well injection.

• Is there a better way to cost effectively manage these liquids?


Beneficial Use of Closed Leachates

Surface Water

Discharge

• The most complex discharge requirements

Industrial Reuse

• Irrigation, cooling water

• Hardness scaling

Dilution Water

• To reduce leachate clogging


Dyer Park Landfill


SWA Leachate Quantity

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Lea

chat

e G

ener

atio

n (

gal

lon

s p

er m

on

th)

Year


Typical Leachate Constituents

ParameterMean Values from of Dyer Park ( Statom,

2004)

Primary Drinking Water

Standards

Secondary Drinking Water

StandardsF.A.C. 62-550

F.A.C 62-777

Antimony µg/L BDL 6 NR NR NR

Arsenic µg/L BDL 10 NR NR NR

Barium µg/L BDL 2000 NR NR NR

Beryllium µg/L BDL 4 NR NR NR

Cadmium µg/L BDL 5 NR NR NR

Copper µg/L BDL NR 1 NR NR

Lead µg/L BDL 15 NR NR NR

Mercury µg/L BDL 2 NR NR NR

Selenium µg/L BDL 50 NR NR NR

Silver µg/L BDL NR 0.1 NR NR

Thallium µg/L BDL 2 NR NR NR

Zinc µg/L BDL NR 5 NR NR


2004)

Primary Drinking Water

Standards

Secondary Drinking Water

StandardsF.A.C. 62-550

F.A.C 62-777

BOD mg/L 47 NR NR 20 NRTotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen (as N) mg/L 504.48 NR NR 10 NRAmmonia (as N) mg/L 473.01 NR NR 5 2.8Total dissolved solids mg/L 3,442 NR 500 NR 500Chloride mg/L 836.67 NR 250 NR NRIron µg/L 4750.2 NR 0.3 NR 1000Manganese µg/L 190.76 NR 0.05 NR NRCOD mg/l 835 NR NR NR NRTOC mg/L 150 NR NR NR NRNitrate (as N) mg/L 5.27 NR NR NR NRPhosphorus mg/L 3.18 NR NR NR NRAlkalinity mg/L 2,453 NR NR NR NRBicarbonate mg/L 2,660 NR NR NR NRCalcium mg/L 176 NR NR NR NRTIC mg/L 54 NR NR NR NRSpecific conductance (mhos/cm) 7,642 NR NR NR NRpH 7.07 NR 6.5-8.5 NR NRMagnesium mg/L 53.75 NR NR NR NRFluoride mg/L 0.37 4000 2 NR NRSulfate mg/L 20.09 NR 250 NR NRChromium µg/L 20.45 100 NR NR NRNickel µg/L 49.53 NR NR NR NRBoron µg/L 3193.33 NR NR NR NRCobalt µg/L 16 NR NR NR NRVanadium µg/L 10.56 NR NR NR NR


Values Tested for during 2014


2004)

Mean Values of Dyer Park (Meeroff)

Values of Dyer Park (Lakner)

Standards

Ammonia (as Nh3) mg/L 473.01 365 ± 140 312 2.8

Total dissolved solids mg/L 3,442 2650 ± 190 2786 500

COD mg/l 835 650 ± 150 375 NR

Alkalinity mg/L 2,453 1950 ± 260 1550 NR

Calcium mg/L 176 450 ± 70 430 NR

pH 7.07 7.23 ± 0.36 7.35 6.5-8.5

12


Photocatalytic Oxidation• Ultraviolet Radiation +

Semiconductor

• Simple, one stage process

• Ultraviolet Light

• Titanium Dioxide


How Does Photocatalysis Work?

h+

e‐Mn+

(aq)

M0(s)

[ Photoreduction ]of metals

+

hν[ Photooxidation ]

of organics

Oxygen

Water

TitaniumDioxide

Proton

Hydroxyl radical

Water and carbon dioxide


Phase One 2014 Research• TiO2 wavelength optimization

• Crystal Violet Test of TiO2 Oxidation process reaction mechanism verification

• Optimization of COD Removal with Catalysis Aids

• Alternative Advanced Oxidation Process


Phase One 2014 Research• Falling Film Reactor 5 g/L TiO2

• 150-W

• 450-W

• Flow Through Reactor 5 g/L TiO2

• 150-W

• 450-W

• Flow Through Reactor with Aeration and 10 g/L TiO2

• 150-W

• 450-W

• 150-W Flow Through Reactor with Aeration and 0.2 g/L TiO2


Crystal Violet Test• Test the hydroxide

ion generation of TiO2

• 1x 10 -4 Molar Concentration

• 5 g/L TiO2


TiO2 Dosing Test

• Full spectrum scan from 400 nm to 200 nm

• Absorbance test conducted at 330 nm.

13


TiO2 Dosing Test


Improving COD Removal with Catalyst

• Stock solution of 5 g/L TiO2

• Increase high potential bias of solution

• Reduce recombination of electrons into TiO2

• Zinc, Aluminum, Steel Wool and Combinations of these catalysts



h+

e‐ Mn+(aq)

M0(s)

[ Photoreduction ]of metals

+

hν

[ Photooxidation ]of organics

Oxygen

Water

TitaniumDioxide

Proton

Hydroxyl radical

Water and carbon dioxideTechnical Advisory Group Meeting




Lamp Spectrum


(150-W) Lamp

Titanium Dioxide Absorption Spectrum

14


Falling Film Reactor 450-W

Titanium Dioxide

Absorption Spectrum

Medium Pressure Mercury-vapor Spectrum

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

200 300 400

Ab

sorb

ance

Wavelength (nm)


Light Intensity Measurement• 150-W UV A&B: 0.5 mW/cm2

• 150-W UV C: 7.21 mW/cm2

• 450-W UV A&B: 56.0 mW/cm2

• 450-W UV C: 0.06 mW/cm2


Falling Film Reactor

LightArch Length

(cm) Circumference

(cm)Area (cm2)

Measured UV (mW/cm2)

Total Power (W)

Test Size (L)

Falling time

(Seconds)

Exposure time (Seconds)

Recirculated Rate (L/hr.)

Number of Pass per liter per hour

Exposure Time per hour

(Seconds)

Energy per Hour per liter

(W/L)

Length of test (hours)

Total Watt Hours/ Liter

(Whr/L)

450W UV A&B

27.94 15.70 438.66 56.00 24.56 9.30 0.41 0.14 320.00 34.41 4.75 0.03 8.00 0.26

450W UV C 27.94 15.70 438.66 0.06 0.03 9.30 0.41 0.14 320.00 34.41 4.75 0.00 8.00 0.00

150W UV A&B

79.30 15.701245.0

10.50 0.62 10.00 0.41 0.39 320.00 32.00 12.54 0.00 8.00 0.02

150W UV C 79.30 15.701245.0

17.21 8.98 10.00 0.41 0.39 320.00 32.00 12.54 0.03 8.00 0.25

Lamp Power Calculations

Time of Fall in ReactorEquation t= (2d/a).5

• Distance of fall: 83 cm• Acceleration rate: 9.81m/s2

Time of Fall in Reactor0.41 second per pass


Flow Through Reactor

LightArch Length

(cm)Circumference

(cm)Area (cm2)

Measured UV (mW/cm2)

Total Power (W)

test size (L)

Retention Time ( hr.)

Percent Exposure per Retentions

Time

Times recirculated per hour per liter

(1/hr.)

Exposure per Liter (1/L)

Watts per Liter (W/L)

Test (hr.)Total Watt Hours/ Liter

(Whr/L)

450W UV A&B 27.94 15.70 438.66 56.00 24.56 8.60 0.03 0.34 24.42 0.27 6.63 8.00 53.08

450W UV C 27.94 15.70 438.66 0.06 0.03 8.60 0.03 0.34 24.42 0.27 0.01 8.00 0.06

150W UV A&B 79.30 15.701245.0

10.50 0.62 9.10 0.03 0.96 23.08 0.72 0.45 8.00 3.61

150W UV C 79.30 15.701245.0

17.21 8.98 9.10 0.03 0.96 23.08 0.72 6.50 8.00 52.02

Lamp Power Calculations



• Reservoir (10L)

• Temperature Sensor

• Pump (360 L/h)

• Flow Regulator

• Sampling Port

• 3 Way Valve

• Weir Compartment

• UV Power Source (150W)



• Reservoir (10L)

• Temperature Sensor

• Pump (360 L/h)

• Flow Regulator

• Sampling Port

• 3 Way Valve

• Weir Compartment

15


Experimental Protocol• Collection of Samples

87 Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015

Experimental Protocol• Operation of Pilot Reactor

• Leachate is measured using 2000 ml graduated cylinder

• TiO2 is measured in 1000 ml beaker

• Slurry is made from TiO2 and leachate then added to reservoir

88


Cooling Solution• Existing Problem

• 50 ft. Stainless Steel 5/16 coil


Experimental Protocol• Experiments were run reactor for 8 hours

• Samples were be collected at 2 hour intervals

• Sample collection procedure is as follows:

• Do not turn off reactor, take samples from discharge pipe

• Take a sample (60 ml) and then placed in tubes to be centrifuged

90


Experimental Protocol• Test centrifuged sample for COD, ammonia,

alkalinity and pH

• UV sensor was used to measure the light intensity in the reactor

• Monitor off gas to determine where ammonia and COD end up

• Monitor temperature of Leachate

91 Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015

Experimental Protocol• COD test using Hach DR4000U with a dilution of 1:5

• Ammonia test using Hanna Hi 937005 with a dilution of 1:10

• Alkalinity test using Hach digital titrator SM2320B using 1.6 H2SO4 and a dilution of 1:10

• pH test using Hach Meter

• DO test using Hach Meter

92

16



• 10 Liter of Leachate

• Added 5 g/L of TiO2

• Mixed for 10 minutes without UV light activated.

• Sampled every 2 hours

• Flow of 320 L/hr.


Comparing Falling Film Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W Temperature


Comparing Falling Film Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W pH


Comparing Falling Film Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W Ammonia


Comparing Falling Film Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W Alkalinity


Comparing Falling Film Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W COD

17



• Starting Concentrations• COD 375 mg/\L

• NH3 313 mg/L

• pH 7.35

• Alkalinity 1550 mg/L

• Final Concentrations 8 hours 150-W• COD 300 mg/\L

• NH3 232 mg/L

• pH 8.2



• NH3 243 mg/L

• pH 8.95


Final Removal % 150-W 450-W

COD 20 32

Ammonia 26 22

Alkalinity 34 32



• 10 Liter Leachate

• TiO2 Concentration of 5 g/L

• Sampled every hour

• Reactor flushed every hour



Flow Through Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W Temperature


Flow Through Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W pH


Flow Through Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W Ammonia


Flow Through Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W Alkalinity

18


Flow Through Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W COD




• NH3 232 mg/L

• pH 8.2



• NH3 293 mg/L

• pH 8.7


Final Removal % 150-W 450-WCOD 25 8

Ammonia 17 45Alkalinity 12 24


• NH3 243 mg/L

• pH 9.85



Flow Through Reactor with Aeration• 10 Liter Leachate

• TiO2 Concentration of 10 g/L





Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W vs. 450-W Temperature


Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W vs. 450-W pH


Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W vs. 450-W Ammonia

19


Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W vs. 450-W Alkalinity


Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W vs. 450-W COD


Flow Through Reactor with Aeration


• NH3 193 mg/L

• pH 8.7



• NH3 119 mg/L

• pH 9.0


Final Removal % 150-W 450-W

COD 7 31

Ammonia 38 25

Alkalinity 31 0

• Final Concentrations 8 hours 450-W• COD 189 mg/L

• NH3 75 mg/L

• pH 8.76



Flow Through Reactor with Aeration and 0.2 g/L TiO2 (150-W)• 10 Liter Leachate

• TiO2 Concentration of 0.2 g/L




• Anti-Foam 20 ml


Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W and 0.2 g/L TiO2 Temperature


Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W and 0.2 g/L TiO2 pH

20


Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W and 0.2 g/L TiO2 Ammonia


Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W and 0.2 g/L TiO2 Alkalinity


Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W and 0.2 g/L TiO2 COD


Flow Through Reactor with Aeration and 0.2 g/L TiO2 (150-W)


• NH3 193 mg/L

• pH 7.17


• Final Concentrations 8 hours• COD 388 mg/\L

• NH3 173.5 mg/L

• pH 8.95


Final Removal % 150-W

COD -32

Ammonia 11

Alkalinity 31


Comparison of COD % Removal


Comparison of Alkalinity % Removal

21


Comparison of Ammonia % Removal


Comparison of Temperature


Critical Orifice Advanced Oxidation Process

Pump


Critical Orifice Advanced Oxidation Process

• 10 gallon of leachate

• Diluted to 17 %

• Test ran for 20 minutes


Critical Orifice Advanced Oxidation pH


Critical Orifice Advanced Oxidation Alkalinity

22


Critical Orifice Advanced Oxidation COD


Critical Orifice Advanced Oxidation TDS


Critical Orifice Advanced Oxidation


• TDS 437 mg/L

• pH 7.99


• Final Concentrations 20 Minutes• COD 83 mg/\L

• TDS 677 mg/L

• pH 7.75


Final Removal % COO

COD 70

TDS -55

Alkalinity -56


TiO2 Recovery

• Centrifuge for experiment samples

• 1 μm filter not effective

• Some removed with 0.45 μm filter

• Settling and decanting


Research for 2015

• Filter after reactor using 1 μm felt filter

• Combination of Lights

• Zinc Powder

• Ozone Light

• Lime Soften

• Critical Orifice Device

• High Electrical Potential Bias


Acknowledgements

23


Any Volunteers?


Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste ManagementJanuary 30, 2014


“Sustainable Management of Pollutants Underneath Landfills”

Ahmed Albasri



4th phase of experimenting• 2014-2015


Aquarium (testing cell) building• Aquarium has been set by coating the discharge

pipe by thin layer of gravel.

• 1 inch of soil had been set in the bottom of the aquarium to enable full circling


Aquarium (testing cell) building• Setting the GCW and the 3 monitoring wells

• Each one of the 3 wells is 1 inch from the GCW

• The GCW and the 3 wells are 1 inch above the bottom of the aquarium


Aquarium (testing cell) building• The aquarium filled with soil while setting the 3 well

cases with the GCW

• The 4 wells were set and coated with thin gravel layer

• The cases were removed to make the soil with direct contact with gravel coating

24



Preparing Iron reference• Preparing 5 patches of 12,000 mg/L of Iron reference

(IR) by dissolving 85.44 gm of FeCL2.4 H2O in 50 ml of HCL and filling the rest of D.I. water

• First Patch was (11434 mg/L)

• Second Patch was (8977 mg/L)

• Third Patch was (11500 mg/L)

• Forth patch was (11680 mg/L)

• Fifth patch was (11400 mg/L)


Preparing Iron reference


Testing cell setting• Aquarium has been set

with feeding system which include 2 water aquariums to stabilize the recharge to 50 ml/min.

• Iron reference were pumped with 200 mg/L average.

• Readings took from the discharge point to measure the saturation level



Sampling • A sample from the GCW were collected to evaluate

iron rise inside the well.

• Each 30 minutes time period a sample was collected.

• Portable spectrophotometer HACH DR 1900 were used for testing the samples

• The following scatters show

the concentrations from the

samples were collected .

25


y = 0.5425x - 22729R² = 0.9426

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8/29/2014 9/18/2014 10/8/2014 10/28/201411/17/2014 12/7/2014 12/27/2014 1/16/2015 2/5/2015

AV

E C

ON

CE

T.

DATE

Average Daily Const.

Series1

Linear (Series1)

y = 0.0505x - 2109.1R² = 0.0252

05

10

152025303540

4550

8/29/2014 9/18/2014 10/8/2014 10/28/2014 11/17/2014 12/7/2014 12/27/2014 1/16/2015

Axi

s T

itle

Axis Title

Const. Inside Well

Series1

Linear (Series1)


Conclusion • The slope of the average daily concentration shows

constant increase for the Iron for sample collected from the outlet which is desired as it reflect the increase of iron in the flow and soil in same time.

• R² value were 0.94 ≈ 1 for the average daily concentration

• The slope of the well sample which were collected from the core of GCW were very 0.05 reflect that well were ready to test as there is not to much deviation (except 2 points were out of the regular variance)


What has been noticed ? • Iron reading were increased through the daily recharge

process then get stable for couple of samples.

• The samples reading which was collected at the end were mostly shows the lower point.

• The reason for the last point might be the reflection of water detention ( which spiked with iron ) inside the Aquarium.

• Aquarium start to have red color which reflect that some of the spiked iron start to convert to Fe3 form because of air expose which led to start the experiment when Fe2 value were passed 50 mg/L limit.


Dialy Data trend12/10/2014

point mg/L time

P0 48.2 5:30

P1 50.4 6:00

P2 49.6 6:30

P3 49.2 7:00

P4 47.8 7:30

P5 42 8:00

P inside 5

47.86667


Air injection (Pumping)• Air pumping started at

1/19/2015

• The air pump supply 1 cubic feel / min

• Samples collected each 30 minutes.

• The sampling process were include the outlet and GCW in addition to the 3 monitoring wells installed around it.


Till now !• 4 days of running air stripping and the process still

on going.

• The data of samples don’t give any slope to make us able to figure out the trend followed.

• Expected adjustment might be taken for the Air flow or the spiked iron reducing

26



Documents

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Atlantic Universitylabees.civil.fau.edu/Meeroff-TAG-minutes-01-30-2015-with slides.pdf · Technical Advisory Group Meeting ... Langelier Saturation