Post on 15-Apr-2018
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
http://labees.civil.fau.edu/leachate
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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"
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Introductions
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
“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
Laboratories for Engineered Environmental Solutions
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Aeration Experiment
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
6
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Leachate After 2 days
Aerated and Rotated Non-Aerated and Rotated
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Leachate after 2 days
Aerated and Stationary Non- Aerated and Stationary
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
After 5 Days
Aerated and Rotated Non-Aerated Rotated
7
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
After 5 Days StationaryAerated Non-Aerated
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Summary• The stationary samples did not appear to form
separate substances• Stationary samples created fine particles
• The rotation seems to create larger particles
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Aerated and Rotated Sample Dark Substance
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
400xDark Substance
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
“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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Loss on Ignition
Loss on Ignition: 86%Technical Advisory Group Meeting
FAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Bleach and Acid Reaction Tests:
A B C DBleach 10% Bleach 1M HCl 1M HNO3
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
(A) Bleach
Initial Final
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
(B) 10% Bleach
Initial Final
9
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
After soaking in bleach for several days
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
(C) 1M HCl
Initial Final
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
(D) 1M HNO3
FinalInitial
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
XRF Data (UF)
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Coagulation Polymer: Clarifloc• Cationic water-soluble polymer in emulsion
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Clarifloc with CaO (Lime)0.5 gram of CaO ~1 gram of CaO
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Clarifloc with CaSO4 (Dry wall)~0.5g (CaSO4) ~1g (CaSO4)
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste ManagementJanuary 30, 2014
Florida Atlantic UniversityCollege of Engineering & Computer Science
“Safe Discharge of Landfill Leachate to the Environment”
Joseph Lakner
Laboratories for Engineered Environmental Solutions
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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?
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Dyer Park Landfill
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
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
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Values Tested for during 2014
ParameterMean Values from of Dyer Park ( Statom,
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Photocatalytic Oxidation• Ultraviolet Radiation +
Semiconductor
• Simple, one stage process
• Ultraviolet Light
• Titanium Dioxide
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Crystal Violet Test• Test the hydroxide
ion generation of TiO2
• 1x 10 -4 Molar Concentration
• 5 g/L TiO2
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
TiO2 Dosing Test
• Full spectrum scan from 400 nm to 200 nm
• Absorbance test conducted at 330 nm.
13
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
TiO2 Dosing Test
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Improving COD Removal with Catalyst
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
FAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Improving COD Removal with Catalyst
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Lamp Spectrum
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
(150-W) Lamp
Titanium Dioxide Absorption Spectrum
14
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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)
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Falling Film Reactor
• Reservoir (10L)
• Temperature Sensor
• Pump (360 L/h)
• Flow Regulator
• Sampling Port
• 3 Way Valve
• Weir Compartment
• UV Power Source (150W)
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor
• Reservoir (10L)
• Temperature Sensor
• Pump (360 L/h)
• Flow Regulator
• Sampling Port
• 3 Way Valve
• Weir Compartment
15
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Cooling Solution• Existing Problem
• 50 ft. Stainless Steel 5/16 coil
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Falling Film Reactor
• 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.
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Comparing Falling Film Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W Temperature
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Comparing Falling Film Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W pH
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Comparing Falling Film Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W Ammonia
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Comparing Falling Film Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W Alkalinity
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Comparing Falling Film Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W COD
17
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Falling Film Reactor
• 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
• Alkalinity 1020 mg/L
• Final Concentrations 8 hours 450-W• COD 255 mg/\L
• NH3 243 mg/L
• pH 8.95
• Alkalinity 1050 mg/L
Final Removal % 150-W 450-W
COD 20 32
Ammonia 26 22
Alkalinity 34 32
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor
• 10 Liter Leachate
• TiO2 Concentration of 5 g/L
• Sampled every hour
• Reactor flushed every hour
• Flow of 210 L/hr.
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W Temperature
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W pH
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W Ammonia
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W Alkalinity
18
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor 150-W vs. 450-W COD
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor
• Starting Concentrations• COD 300 mg/\L
• NH3 232 mg/L
• pH 8.2
• Alkalinity 1020 mg/L
• Final Concentrations 8 hours 150-W• COD 225 mg/\L
• NH3 293 mg/L
• pH 8.7
• Alkalinity 900 mg/L
Final Removal % 150-W 450-WCOD 25 8
Ammonia 17 45Alkalinity 12 24
• Final Concentrations 8 hours 450-W• COD 255 mg/\L
• NH3 243 mg/L
• pH 9.85
• Alkalinity 1050 mg/L
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor with Aeration• 10 Liter Leachate
• TiO2 Concentration of 10 g/L
• Sampled every hour
• Reactor flushed every hour
• Flow of 210 L/hr.
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W vs. 450-W Temperature
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W vs. 450-W pH
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W vs. 450-W Ammonia
19
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W vs. 450-W Alkalinity
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W vs. 450-W COD
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor with Aeration
• Starting Concentrations• COD 263 mg/\L
• NH3 193 mg/L
• pH 8.7
• Alkalinity 900 mg/L
• Final Concentrations 8 hours 150-W• COD 243 mg/\L
• NH3 119 mg/L
• pH 9.0
• Alkalinity 620 mg/L
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
• Alkalinity 700 mg/L
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor with Aeration and 0.2 g/L TiO2 (150-W)• 10 Liter Leachate
• TiO2 Concentration of 0.2 g/L
• Sampled every hour
• Reactor flushed every hour
• Flow of 210 L/hr.
• Anti-Foam 20 ml
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W and 0.2 g/L TiO2 Temperature
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W and 0.2 g/L TiO2 pH
20
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W and 0.2 g/L TiO2 Ammonia
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W and 0.2 g/L TiO2 Alkalinity
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor with Aeration 150-W and 0.2 g/L TiO2 COD
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Flow Through Reactor with Aeration and 0.2 g/L TiO2 (150-W)
• Starting Concentrations• COD 394 mg/\L
• NH3 193 mg/L
• pH 7.17
• Alkalinity 1310 mg/L
• Final Concentrations 8 hours• COD 388 mg/\L
• NH3 173.5 mg/L
• pH 8.95
• Alkalinity 920 mg/L
Final Removal % 150-W
COD -32
Ammonia 11
Alkalinity 31
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Comparison of COD % Removal
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Comparison of Alkalinity % Removal
21
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Comparison of Ammonia % Removal
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Comparison of Temperature
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Critical Orifice Advanced Oxidation Process
Pump
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Critical Orifice Advanced Oxidation Process
• 10 gallon of leachate
• Diluted to 17 %
• Test ran for 20 minutes
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Critical Orifice Advanced Oxidation pH
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Critical Orifice Advanced Oxidation Alkalinity
22
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Critical Orifice Advanced Oxidation COD
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Critical Orifice Advanced Oxidation TDS
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Critical Orifice Advanced Oxidation
• Starting Concentrations• COD 281 mg/\L
• TDS 437 mg/L
• pH 7.99
• Alkalinity 230 mg/L
• Final Concentrations 20 Minutes• COD 83 mg/\L
• TDS 677 mg/L
• pH 7.75
• Alkalinity 360 mg/L
Final Removal % COO
COD 70
TDS -55
Alkalinity -56
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
TiO2 Recovery
• Centrifuge for experiment samples
• 1 μm filter not effective
• Some removed with 0.45 μm filter
• Settling and decanting
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Acknowledgements
23
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Any Volunteers?
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste ManagementJanuary 30, 2014
Florida Atlantic UniversityCollege of Engineering & Computer Science
“Sustainable Management of Pollutants Underneath Landfills”
Ahmed Albasri
Laboratories for Engineered Environmental Solutions
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
4th phase of experimenting• 2014-2015
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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)
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Preparing Iron reference
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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)
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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)
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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.
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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.
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
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
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015
Technical Advisory Group MeetingFAU ▪ January 30, 2015