View
53
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Mission “Bioptech is the market leader
in preventing eutrophication thus ensuring access to clean water
and recycling Phosphorusthus securing food supply for a growing population”
Consequences & trends
Increasing regulation P-removal Strong need for P-recycling
European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform (ESPP)(http://www.phosphorusplatform.eu/)
1. Worldwide food security
2. No P in Europe3. Eutrophication4. P-crisis affects all – Prices increase5. Call to action on RecyclingBaltic Region Focus
Reactive Filter Beds
• The worlds most efficient P-filter
• Natural mineral - Opoka
• Proven and established - 4 000 small filters installed
• Scientific evidence - 20 years of research
• Ongoing upscaling - Large filter pilots in Sweden and UK
• Own opencast in Poland
• Resource provision & production capacity - 1,000-fold scalability
Unique technology - multitasking – Sustainable
1. One of few concurrent P-removal & recycling technologies
2. Highest P-removal (100 %) on the market
3. Concurrent bacteria & odor removal – strong added value
4. 30 % cheaper than existing technology, chemical precipitation
5. Applicable on all sources of leakage
6. Proven - Simple - Flexible - Scalable
2.Biological
step
Recyclable Reactive Filter Bed
1.Septic tank
3.Reactive Bed
filter
4 000 small filters (< 20 pe) in operation
End-polishing
Water + P + Bacteria Water free from P, bacteria & odorReactive Bed
filter
Principle
In practice
Calcination, Slow P-release,pH-increase, nutrientUptake, better structure
HPO42-
Ca2+
OH-
PO43-Ca3(PO4)2(s)
Filter media based on calcium-silicate (hydrate) material
Dominating P-form in ww
Different forms of Calcium-phosphatescan be created
What happens in the Poloniteduring retention time?
Ca2+ + 2 OH- → Ca (OH)2 , pH decreases
pH:12,0 - 9,0
Background data from e.g.:
Bench-scale column tests: Nilsson, C., .. Renman, G., et al. 2013. Efficacy of reactive mineral-based sorbents for phosphate, bacteria, nitrogen and TOC removal – column experiment in recirculation batch mode. Water Research 47: 5165-5175
Pilot-scale field tests:Renman, A., Renman, G., 2010. Long-term phosphate removal by the calcium-silicate material Polonite in wastewater filtration systems. Chemosphere 79: 659-664.
P-tot:0,1 – 0,3 mg/l
Baltic Sea Eutrophication
90 % Eutrophicated affecting
75 Mn people in 1 500 municipalities in catchment areas
Source: BCG: HELCOM, EUROSTAT
A Lack of Awareness!
Source: BCG: Baltic Sea Survey
70% of municipalities not implementing measures to address problems,
25% unaware of critical status of the Baltic Sea!
Helcom Conclusions;”Municipal upgrade & private WWT is a good idea!”
Need• Structured approach to determine cost-effectiveness• Prioritise actions to mitigate nutrient loads• Pilot projects
Key to success• Similar approaches local adaptions – no one size fits them all • Engagement - municipalities, local politicians, local org, companies and citizens
Source: BCG, ”Restoring waters in the Baltic Sea Region”
BSAP P-red. target70%Municipal WWT
Expansion, Upgrade,Adjustment
< -------------------- 30 – 65 % -------------------- >
Small P- Filters
Large P-filters Customized filters
WasteWater Treatment Plants
Single houses, scattered settlements NA NA
Biop®
Municipalities, industries
Farmland, animal farms,Constructed wetlands etc
Modular & scalable applications adressing all needs
Products
Segments
Cost Effective P- Filtration(€/kg P removed)
Bioptech solutions
Phosphorus removed (kg/year)
Cost-efficiency of P-removal(EUR/kg)
Comparison figure(Naturvardverket 2008)(EUR/kg) *
P-filterPrivate HH
3,4 101 215 – 637
Large filter Muni. WWTP
6 803 49 41 – 330
Manure Run-Off filter
500 80 50 – 9735
FarmlandDitch-filter
375 67 50 – 9735
* (Naturvardsverket Report 5877, 2008)
“Traditional” solutions prevail – Need for new solutions
Technique Use Effective
Cost effectiv
e
Less freq.
maint.
Robust Recycling
Min. Mech.
Comment
Infiltration bed40 % ?
Traditional,Does it work?Sand Filtration
Bed (markbädd) 17 % ?Only septic tank
19 % ! Doesn’t work
Storage tank 21 % ? Logistics, CO2
Compact WWTP2 % ?/ ?/ ?/ Chemicals or P-
filterCommunal treatment 1 % ?
Source: Hav och vatten; Svenska MiljöEmissionsData (SMED), SMED Rapport Nr 44 2011.
Septic Tank
Effluent Treated
Water
BIOP – a compact wwtp for private houses
• Compact and light – little digging• Cost Effective• Low Energy Footprint• No chemicals• Good Reduction capabilities:
Technique
Infiltration bed
Sand Filtration Bed (markbädd)
Only septic tank
Storage tank
Compact WWTP
Communal treatment
BOD > 90 %
Phosphorus > 90 %
Ntot > 50 %
A New Solution NeededTechnique Use Effectiv
eCost
effective
Less freq.
maint.
Robust Recycling
Min. Mech.
Comment
Infiltration bed40 % !
Traditional,doesn‘t workSand Filtration
Bed (markbädd) 17 % !Only septic tank
19 % ! Doesn’t work
Storage tank 21 % Doesn’t treat
Compact WWTP2 %
Communal treatment 1 % Expensive
???
Septic Biological pretreatmentw. filtermedia
Horisontal filter w. filter media
SWIM - Concept drawing
SamplingSampling
Gravity Open Flexible Modular Scalable Cost effective
Challenges;- Hydraulics, retention time- Dimensioning filter media- Pre-treatment, BOD- Filter change- Logistics
Polonite & Sorbulite
Project Objectives & Benefits
Nutrient Discharge to water sources
Recycling of Phosphorus
High Efficiency
P: 90 - 100 %N: 50 %Bacteria: 99,9 %BOD: > 90 %
10 % Cheaper acquisition & installation
Carefree & 25 % cheaper maintenance
Open solution instead of black box. Robust
Recycling of 100 % phosphorus
Gravity, modular,Flexible, scalable,min mechanical parts
-> Scientific evidence
1. New installation
Large p-filters, large WWTPBioptech filters as a substitute or complement
Bio WWTP
Bio + Post chem WWTP
Bio + Simultaneous chem WWTP
P tot 0,1 – 0,5 mg/l
4. Sewer overflow filter 5. Reject water
”P-Mining”
3. Upgrade / Complement
2. Substitute
INLET
PUMP
FLOW SWITCH
OUTLET
#1 Retention time 1 h
#2 DRAINING
#3 DRAINED
#4 FILLING
FLOW SWITCH
PUMP
Large P filters – Large WWTPSequenced Batch Processing
Benefits- Cost effective- Simple, flexible, scalable- Low maintenance, corrosion- No sludge- Hygienization- No chem
Competition P-FILTERSP-treatment + P-recycling
Performance
CostEfficiency
High
Low High
Low
Chemicals
Other filter media1. Optimization2. Cost3. Environment?4. No Recycling5. A lot of SLUDGE
Global trends – driving new tech.1. P-treatment legislation2. P-recycling 3. Chemicals reduction
Filter concept – chicken farm manure runoff
Sand + Sorbulite® filter Polonite®
filter
Inlet
Outlet
Robust - Effective - Life time – Dirty water
Overflow filterCoarse Sorbulite®
Distribution well
Distribution well
Bio/Sedimentation basin
Systems not in right proportion
Estimated filter performance:- Ptot < 0.5 mg/L (80-90 % reduction)- Ntot 50-70 % reduction- BOD7 70-90 % reduction- Bacteria (E.coli and coliforms) 70 - 90 % reduction