Ceramic Membranes

A Pilot Evaluation of an Emerging

Reuse Technology
Randall Booker, PhD, PE
Outline
Wastewater Membrane Applications
Ceramic Membrane Characteristics
Ceramic Membrane Applications
Project Background
Pilot Results and Observations
Next Steps
Collaborative Pilot Effort
Dallas Water Utilities
Membrane Filtration for WW
MF/UF membranes
are ideal for WW
reuse applications:
Consistent WQ
Barrier to solids and
pathogens
Reliability/Automation
Typical Application is Polymeric
Membrane (e.g. PVDF, PS, PP)
o Tertiary MF/UF (on secondary
effluent)
Hollow-fiber encased element
with cross-flow operation
Submerged systems
o MBR MF/UF (on screened
influent)
Hollow-fiber submerged
Flat-sheet submerged
What are Ceramic Membranes?
Made from Ceramic Materials
o (e.g., oxides of titanium, zirconium,
aluminium)
Single channel tube
o Similar to hollow fiber (larger diameter)
Flat Sheet/submerged (Kubota)
Monolith (MetaWater-NGK)
o Multi-channel tubular membrane element
MetaWater (NGK) monolithic ceramic
membrane selected for pilot study
o Pressurized Inside-out flow
o Dead-end filtration operation
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 m
hair Crypto-
sporidium
smallest
micro-
organism
polio virus
Suspended solids
Parasites
Bacteria
Org. macro. molecules
Viruses
Colloids Dissolved salts
Sand Filtration
Microfiltration
Ultrafiltration
Nanofiltration
Reverse Osmosis
Membrane Rejection Characteristics
Ceramic Membranes
Ceramic Membrane Surface Properties
Ceramic Polymeric
Metal Oxide Surface Chemistry
Metal Sites for Binding Foulant (as a
ligand)
Ligand Sites for Binding Metal
Coagulant
Amphoteric
Use of coagulant to manage surface
chemistry is key
Pilot Ceramic Membrane Element
Filtrate slits
Filtrate collecting channel
Filtrate
Raw water
Feed Channel
2.5 mm
Dead End
Operation
with Periodic
Backwash
Parameter Detail
MembraneMaterial Innerpressurizedtypemonolith
Membranefiltrationchannelsize 0.008inch
LengthofMembraneElement 39.3inch
SurfaceAreaofMembraneElement 4.4squarefeet(sf)
Outsidediameter 1.25inch
FlowDirection Insideout
NominalPoreSize 0.1micron
NominalFlow 0.611gpm @100gfd
Flow Pattern in Monolith Membrane Module
(Watanabe, 2008)
Module Casing
Membrane
Feed
Dead-end point
Ceramic Membrane Module
(Panglish, 2009)
Ceramic Membranes vs.
Polymeric Membranes
Attributes
Higher flux at relatively low pressure
Comparable recovery (to 99%)
Aggressive flux maintenance capabilities
High durability against oxidants, strong acids, bases,
and temperature
Hydrophilic membrane surface
More robust membrane integrity
Low Replacement frequency (~ 20 Years)
Challenges
Relatively smaller packing density
Relatively higher cost
Limited US track record
Ceramic Membrane Applications
First full-scale system operational in France, 1990
Presently, over 70 installations in Japan (<10 MGD)
US approval for potable water (CO & CA)
Rifle, CO (Malcolm Pirnie)
Watsonville, CA
(selected over polymerics)
Currently, no known municipal wastewater/reuse projects in
North America
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Ceramic Membrane Pilot System
Two trains - 1 gpm each
Ability to test variables
in parallel
Fully automated w/ data
acquisition
SWWTP - Pilot Site Location
Pilot Skid Area
Feed Water Locations
Secondary
Clarifiers
ChlorineContact
Basin
Pilot Testing Approach - Proof of Concept
Feed waters
o SWWTP Secondary Effluent
Chlorinated
Non-Chlorinated
Objectives
o Demonstrate Proof of Concept for WW reuse applications
TCEQ reuse compliance (Type I , 3 NTU)
Criteria for sustainable operation
Establish basis for subsequent full-scale demonstration
Constraints
o Pilot scale element/skid
o Short pilot test period (~ 1 month)
Pilot Testing Variables
Feed: Chlorinated/Non-chlorinated Secondary Effluent
Coagulant dose: <5 50 mg/L (ferric sulfate)
Flux: 50 - 100 gfd
Filtration cycle: 30-60 minutes
CEB Sequence/Type/Duration: Twice per day
Train A - Acid (sulfuric) Only
Train B Acid/Hypochlorite
CIP: w/ Citric Acid
Stress Test
Proof of Concept Operational Goals
Maximize permeability (gfd/psi)
Maximize flux (Target = 100 gfd)
Minimize TMP rise (5-8 psi per filtration cycle)
Optimize CEB (1-2 per day)
Initial TMP rise over 2 CEBs/ 24 hours ~ 0.1 psi
CIPs: 2 -4 per year
Results - Chorinated Secondary Effluent
Train A (Acid CEB)
Results - Chlorinated Secondary Effluent
Train B (Acid/Hypo CEB)
Chlorinated Effluent Observations
Filtrate turbidity < 0.5 NTU (TCEQ Type 1 met)
Coagulant is required for sustainable operation
Change in TMP over 30 min filtration cycle met goal @ 100 gfd
TMP recovery after CEB was higher than goal (0.1 psi/d)@ 100 gfd
~ 0.5 psi/day for Train A (Acid)
~ 0.3 psi/day for Train B (Acid/Hypo)
TMP recovery optimization needed
o Coagulant
o CIP frequency/protocol
Results suggests sustainable operation possible
Stress Test @ 100 gfd and 60 min filtration cycles appears
unsustainable
Results - Non-Chlorinated Secondary Effluent
Train A (Acid CEB)
Results - Non-Chlorinated Secondary Effluent
Train B (Acid/Hypo CEB)
Non-Chlorinated Effluent Observations
Filtrate quality similar to chlorinated feed (TCEQ Type I stds
met)
Change in TMP over 30 min filtration cycle met goal @ 100 gfd
Notably steeper rise in initial TMP compared to chlorinated
effluent
TMP recovery after CEB was higher than goal (0.1 psi/d)@ 100
gfd:
~ 0.7 psi/day for Train A (Acid)
~ 0.8 psi/day for Train B (Acid/ Hypo)
Suggests TMP recovery may be enhanced by a low level of
oxidant in the feed stream
ProjectedFullScaleOperatingConditions
Parameter
ChlorinatedSecondaryEffluent
Stream
Flux,gfd 100
FerricSulfateDose,mg/L 50
Filtration Cycle,min 30
NormalBackwash
Duration
22
45sec
CEB 2acid/hypochloriteCEBsperday
CIPsperyear >2*
* To be refined during full scale element demonstration
Pilot Study Conclusions
Reuse Proof of Concept demonstrated
Ceramic membranes have beneficial characteristics
relative to performance in reuse applications
Sustainable operation at a high flux is possible
Optimization of operating conditions at full-scale element
demonstration level will refined for use in life cycle
cost/benefit
Optimization focus areas for full scale demonstration
Coagulant addition
CEB/ CIP protocol and interval
Next Steps
Side by Side Pilot Testing with 20
gpm Ceramic & Polymeric Units
o Optimize operation
o Perform 90 day testing to meet TCEQ
requirements
Obtain TCEQ approval of the pilot
testing for ceramic membranes
Evaluate life cycle cost/ benefit vs
polymeric membranes
Acknowledgments
Chris Kaakaty, Dallas Water Utilities
Mark Evers, Dallas Water Utilities
Robert Mikel, Dallas Water Utilities
Nathen Myers, Veolia Water
Michael Sparks, Veolia Water
Randy McIntyre, Malcolm Pirnie
Chamindra Dassanayake, Malcolm Pirnie
Joe Husband, Malcolm Pirnie
Brandt Miller, Malcolm Pirnie
James Howard, Malcolm Pirnie