[PDF] - Technical Advisory Group Meeting Florida Atlantic University Funded PDF Document

SLIDE 1

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Florida Atlantic University

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

DATE: Friday, March 18, 2016 TIME: 2:00 pm to 3:50 pm WHERE: CM Building (22), Room 125 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431 MEETING AGENDA

2:00 – 2:10 pm

Opening Address and Introduction of Participants

D. Meeroff

2:10 – 2:40 pm

Leachate Collection System Clogging

B. Shaha

2:40 –3:10 pm

Safe Discharge of Landfill Leachate to the Environment J. Lakner

3:10 –3:40 pm

Investigation of Effective Odor Control Strategies

J. Roblyer
M. Vidovic

3:40 –3:50 pm

Open Forum Participants

3:50 pm

Adjourn, Thank You

D. Meeroff

Attendance: Tim Vinson, Joseph Lakner, Julia Roblyer, Mateja Vidovic, Eve Walecki, Damaris Lugo, David Cowan, Peng Yi, Dan Meeroff, Bishow Nath Shaha, Jeff Roccapriore, Craig Ash, Owrang Kashef, Mark Eyeington, Neil Coffman

1. Opening address by D. Meeroff followed by introduction of the group members and participants (2:05

pm)

2. B. Shaha gave a presentation on the Flowmark antiscaling system. He described the history of the

leachate clogging system including soluble calcium data that led to the idea of conducting a field scale model experiment. He presented water quality results from preliminary experiments in which pH, conductivity, and alkalinity and calcium (soluble vs. total) were not statistically different from the flowmark to the control side in triplicate tests. This led to the hypothesis that crystalline structure of solids collected from treated vs. untreated side may be different in XRD/XRF. First pure samples of calcite and aragonite were obtained and analyzed. A method of library database spectral matching with Rietveld refinement was used to identify the substance and applied to historical samples collected from the SWA prior to dilution and flowmark installation. However, no solids were collected from the field scale model in longterm tests, only biological slime. The next experiment involved filling a 5000-gallon tanker with leachate and letting it drain into the field scale model pipe network over several days. This resulted in rapid clogging of the 1-inch flowmeters, which were eventually removed. In the latest tests, solids were collected from the spool pieces and are currently being prepped for XRD/XRF analysis to check for differences. Shaha plans to repeat the experiment 3 more times. Cowan asked for explanation

f theoretical graph of XRD spectrum. Vinson asked about where the solids were collected [in the HDPE

spool piece], and about how the flow regime was different between longterm pumping test and the tanker test [8-13 gpm in longterm test, but unknown in tanker test]. Shaha determined to measure the flowrate in the next experiments to be able to calculate a residence time. Also water quality data from

SLIDE 2

the tanker load was not collected in the first experiment, and Shaha determined to collect initial and final water quality data on subsequent experiments. Cowan asked in any solids were collected in the PVC pipe sections, and Shaha replied that none were because the HDPE spool piece was designed to be at the lowest point in the system to encourage precipitation to occur there. Vinson asked how long the leachate sat in the spool piece segment stagnant, and Shaha replied that he would devise a way to determine that in the next experiment. Meeroff mentioned that the way the truck is configured, solids deposited in the truck after loading are the first things to enter the pipe network leading to rapid

clogging. Vinson suggested stirring the leachate in the truck somehow.
3. J. Roblyer and M. Vidovic gave a presentation on nuisance odor project. They introduced the topic, how
dors are characterized, identified different odor compounds, described odor detection/monitoring

strategies and factors that impact odor intensity, and identified several case studies. Roblyer described the protein binding experiments to create a new odor detection monitoring system. Clone of odorant binding protein 2A has been obtained today, so experiments to synthesize the protein can begin shortly. Ash asked that Task 1-3 be described. Cowan asked if incineration of MSW leads to odors [students said they would consult with WM and SWA]. Ash asked if multiple sources could be distinguished by this technology [remains to be seen]. Lugo asked if initial experiments will be conducted with pure substances, will it work with mixtures in the field [that is the experiment that will be conducted], so which compounds will be tested first? [Vidovic showed a table]. Vinson asked if fluorescent label will be located near the binding site and if not bound will the protein fluoresce. Lugo asked if there are similar products that use enzymes which are proprietary. She believes there are similar items on the market today; however Roblyer explained that those are for metabolizing odors not detection/capture systems like the technology described here. Cowan asked if there would be a specific fluorescence response for different compounds [it remains to be seen but is technically possible to have a different signature based on changes in protein morphology or multiple fluorescent labels or color changes]. Vinson recommended fluorescence flow cell similar to an HPLC detector for the proposed vacuum chamber.

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 discussed regulations and water quality targets for 3 different reuse applications. Then he explained how the UV/TiO2 and EMOH processes work, and then he presented pilot testing results. First he verified the reaction mechanism, then he ran tests to determine the effect of catalyst aids (semiconductor doping), but none performed better than UV/TiO2. Then he showed results using different lamps and reactor configurations. Comparing the lamp power

f the two types of lamps in different wavelength regimes, they were found to have similar output. The

falling film reactor configuration was shown to be the most efficient design, and aeration was determined to be important for ammonia removal/conversion. The more catalyst, the higher the calcium removal and the lower the alkalinity removal. This suggested an adsorption process at play. Reactor kinetics tests revealed non-psuedo first order behavior contrary to previous published results. 48 hours tests did not follow the predicted removal from first order model. The kinetics appeared to have 5

components. The fastest reaction was the k3 reaction. More testing is required to determine the nature
f this component. Next pretreatment results were presented and BOD/COD ratio showed evidence of

complete mineralization. Finally a cost analysis was presented, which showed that an understanding of the k3 reaction would allow for more effective operation. Ash asked how this process would be implemented [as a series of sequencing batch reactors]. Cowan asked why the k3 reaction is so fast [catalyst clumping due to magnetic forces in the initial reaction caused the particle size of the titanium catalyst to increase 10-fold due to self-attraction, which may have limited mass transfer to the reaction sites and reduced the efficiency (lower surface area to volume ratio), so it was recommended to conduct TEM analysis]. Lakner also mentioned that once the catalyst dries, it reverts back to its initial particle size, which would complicate microscopic analysis. Vinson said there are known reagents that measure

SLIDE 3

reaction efficiency, and Lakner responded that crystal violet tests were conducted to verify the reaction

mechanism. A discussion of reaction mechanisms occurring in the k3 zone determined that ammonia

and COD removal are most affected, concentration of catalyst caused blocking of light and diminishing returns and also UV light is absorbed by leachate constituents as well.

5. Dr. Meeroff thanked all of the participants, and the meeting was adjourned at 4:06 pm.

SLIDE 4

1

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Technical Advisory Group Meeting

1. “Critical Examination of Leachate Collection System Clogging”
2. “Investigation of Effective Odor Control Strategies”
3. “Safe Discharge of Landfill Leachate to the Environment”

Daniel E. Meeroff, Ph.D.

Department of Civil, Environmental & Geomatics Engineering

Laboratories for Engineered Environmental Solutions

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Agenda

1. Introductions/Opening Remarks
2. Evaluation of Leachate Clogging
3. Odor Control Study
4. Photocatalytic Oxidation Studies
Dr. Meeroff

Shaha Roblyer/Vidovic Lakner

5. User Input/Open Forum

Everyone Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Previous Work

“Options for Managing Municipal Landfill Leachate”
Englehardt and Meeroff (2006)
“Investigation of Energized Options for Leachate Management Year

One & Year Two”

Meeroff and Tsai (2006), Meeroff and Tsai (2008)
“Interactive Decision Support Tool for Leachate Management”
Meeroff and Teegavarapu (2010)
“Energized Processes for Onsite Treatment of Leachate”
Meeroff (2011)
“Management of Subsurface Reductive Dissolution Underneath

Landfills & Sustainable Management of Pollutants Underneath Landfills”

Meeroff and Albasri (2012), Meeroff 2015
“Onsite Treatment of Leachate Using Energized Processes”
Meeroff (2014)
“Safe Discharge of Landfill Leachate to the Environment”
Meeroff and Lakner (2015)

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

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

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

“Futuristic On-Site Leachate Management”

D.E. Meeroff1, J. Lakner, B. Shaha, E. Walecki, A. Harris, and L. Meyer

“Effect of electronic water treatment system on calcium carbonate

scaling: A case study”

B. Shaha1 and D.E. Meeroff

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Introductions

SLIDE 5

2

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016 Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Florida Atlantic University College of Engineering & Computer Science

“Effect of Electronic Water Treatment on Calcium carbonate Scaling ”

Bishow Nath Shaha

Department of Civil, Environmental & Geomatics Engineering

Laboratories for Engineered Environmental Solutions

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

“Critical Examination of Leachate Collection System Clogging”

Agenda

Flowmark Water Treatment System
How it works
Rationale and background
Preliminary results
Formulation of hypothesis
Objectives
Development of field scale model
Methodology
Results and major findings
Next Steps

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Flowmark: How it works

Applies adjustable energy pulses to the wastewater
Claims to help precipitate microscopic seed crystals of CaCO3
Also claims to change the morphology of crystal structure
Intended to prevent mineral scale accumulation

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Dilution water
Flowmark
Water quality testing

Research agreement with Hinkley Center (UF & FAU)

Rationale and background

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016 1999 2000 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

First clogging issue recorded at SWA SWA performed clogging studies Major clogging problems encountered

FAU lab tests
Field model development
Flowmark experiment

Clogging issue timeline

Rationale and background (Cont.)

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016 Washed out rock Sample Collected for lab analysis

SLIDE 6

3

Rationale and background (Cont.)

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

2013
Lab experiment conducted at FAU
Acid dissolution properties of samples: Oct 24, and Nov 14, 2013

0.1 mL of 0.1M HCl 0.1 mL, 12 M HCl 0.1 mL, 12 M HCl In 10 mL leachate

Rationale and background (Cont.)

2014
SWA introduced:
Dilution water in the gravity

collection system

FlowMark device at manhole 11
Clogging problem reduced

significantly

Is it the result of dilution or

flowmark?

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016 Flowmark Dilution water

Preliminary Results

Parameter Units Upstream (Manhole 11) Downstream (Manhole 5) pH 7.20 7.43 Alkalinity mg/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:

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016 #By Jastin Dacey

Field scale model has been proposed

Objectives

To observe the effect of electronic treatment

(flowmark) on water quality parameters of interest

To understand the behavior of calcium carbonate

agglomeration and scaling in the presence and absence of electronic treatment

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Development of field scale model

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Development of field scale model

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

SLIDE 7

4

Development of field scale model

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Development of field scale model

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Development of field scale model

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Development of field scale model

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Development of field scale model

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Development of field scale model

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

SLIDE 8

5

Development of field scale model

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Development of field scale model

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016 YSI

Methodology

Test conditions:
To get continuous flow for couple of hours, pump station A held out of

service for 3-5 days prior to experiment

Flowmark @MH11 was kept off for 3-5 days prior to experiment
Flowrate varied between 8-13 gpm
Continuous data monitoring:
YSI 556 MPS (Multiparameter Instrument)
pH, conductivity, temperature
Calibrated before each test day with standard solutions

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Methodology

Field tests:
Calcium (Total &

Dissolved)

Hach Method

8204,EPA approved, equivalent of SM 3500-Ca B or D)

Alkalinity
Hach Method 8203,

EPA approved, equivalent of SM 2320 B

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016 Aaron Thornton conducting a calcium test Bishow conducting an alkalinity test

Lab tests:
Gravimetric

solids analysis (SM 2540)

TDS: standard

methods SM 2540 B

TSS: standard

methods SM 2540 D

VSS: standard

methods SM 2540 E

Results: pH

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016 June10, 2015

Results: Conductivity

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016 June10, 2015

SLIDE 9

6

Results: Ca and Alk

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016 June10, 2015 * U-untreated ; T- treated

Results: Ca and Alk

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016 June10, 2015 * Statistical T-test also conform with the plots above as well as with other filed and lab test data

Results: TDS, TSS, & VSS

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016 June10, 2015

Time TDS (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) VSS (mg/L) Untreated Treated Untreated Treated Untreated Treated 10:15 34,690 35,630 1,380 1,485 530 485 10:45 35,270 36,210 880 390 310 200 11:20 31,580 31,300 850 1,350 460 620 11:50 32,070 30,140 700 480 290 190 12:23 30,340 33,240 810 810 340 460 12:55 33,550 33,850 870 690 500 340 13:25 34,500 30,070 800 790 290 430

No statistical significant difference either
No evidence of improving water quality
Next phase of this study is the solid analysis through

XRD and XRF

To identify the components of solids
To observe the difference in the solid structure

from two sides

Methodology: XRD/XRF analysis

Crystal sample preparation
Take a representative

sample

Air Dry the sample
Powder the sample with

mortar and pestle

Keep in a Ziploc bag/glass

bottle

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016 Calcite Aragonite

Methodology: XRD/XRF analysis

Rietveld Refinement
Qualitative analysis
Compounds present
Approximate percentage
Quantitative analysis
Percentage
Bragg Coefficient, R
Lower the better

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016 XRD pattern after Rietveld refinement

Methodology: XRD/XRF analysis

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

SLIDE 10

7

Results: XRD/XRF analysis

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016 Calcite

Results: Baseline study

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016 MH 5 [Jun 17, 2013]

SiO2 - 82.5%
CaCO3 – 17.5%
R = 11.5%
CaCO3 – 100%
R = 8.0%
CaCO3 – 100%
R = 8.8%

MH 8 [Nov 14, 2013] No date and Location

Results: Baseline study

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016 Pump station A

CaCO3 – 100%
R = 10.5%
CaCO3 – 100%
R = 9.0%

Manhole 11

Difficulties

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Solid collection
3-6 hours of flow
Long term leachate bleeding

Recent modification

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Gravity flow from a tanker

truck

Capacity 5000 gal
Pump station A leachate
Taking of the flowmeter
Clogged in less than 5 min

Collected solid

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016 Untreated side Treated side

SLIDE 11

8

Further steps

Run tanker trunk experiment several times (n = 3)
Collect solids
Prepare for analysis
Run through XRD/XRF
Rietveld refinement
Observe differences in solids between treated and untreated side

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Research outcome

Conference preceding: accepted

1.Bishow N. Shaha1, Dr. Daniel E. Meeroff2, Kevin Kohn3, “Effect of

electronic water treatment system on calcium carbonate scaling: A case study”. WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL & WATER RESOURCES CONGRESS

2016 Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016 Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016 Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Laboratories for Engineered Environmental Solutions

Florida Atlantic University College of Engineering & Computer Science

“Investigation of Effective Odor Control Strategies”

Daniel E. Meeroff, Ph.D. Julia Roblyer Mateja Vidovic

Department of Civil, Environmental & Geomatics Engineering Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM) Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Why Do We Worry About Nuisance Odors?

They can be a game changer
Impacts “Good Neighbor” status
Affect public perception
May violate air quality regulations
Lowers community property values, quality of life
Can become a political issue
Simply annoying!
And the list goes on!

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM) Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Nuisance Odors

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM) Landfill odor categories and common odor descriptions (Decottignies et.al. 2009; Curren 2012)

SLIDE 12

9

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Landfill odor descriptor wheel

(Decottignies et.al. 2009; Curren 2012) Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Research Progress

TASK 1: Conduct Exhaustive Literature Review
Identify odor causing compounds in solid waste operations
Advantages/disadvantages of odor detection/monitoring techniques
Factors influencing the efficiency of data collection
Odor mitigation technologies
Costs

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM) Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Identification of odor causing compounds

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Database of Odor Causing Compounds

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

Model compound Concentration to Generate Equal Odor Intensity Reference Odor Class Ethylene dichlor 800 ppm WEF 1978 Ethereal 1,8 Cineole 10 WEF 1978 Camphoraceous Pentadecanlacton 1 WEF 1978 Musky Phenylethylmethyl ethylcarbinol 300 WEF 1978 Floral Methone 6 WEF 1978 Minty Formic acid 50000 WEF 1978 Pungent Dimethyl disulfide 0.1 WEF 1978 Putrid H2S 0.7 μg/m3 Lebrero 2011 Rotten cabbage Methyl mercaptan 0.04 Lebrero 2011 Sulfidy Dimethyl sulfide 2.5 Lebrero 2011 Decayed cabbage Trimethylamine 0.8 Lebrero 2011 Fishy, pungent Butyric acid 1 Lebrero 2011 Sour, perspiration Butanone 738 Lebrero 2011 Sweet, minty Toluene 8025 Lebrero 2011 Rubbery, mothballs Benzene 4500 Lebrero 2011 Sweet, solventy Skatole 0.0004 Lebrero 2011 Perfume

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Odor-causing compounds in landfills

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

Odorant Descriptor OTC (ppbv) OTC(μg/m3) Reference 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene aromatic 150 780 Curren 2012 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene aromatic 230 1200 Curren 2012 acetic acid vinegar, sour 140 Curren 2012 acetone chemical,sweet 14000 35000 Curren 2012 acrolien acrid 170 410 Curren 2012 ammonia pungent 5800 4100 Curren 2012 a-pinene sweet,pine 20 30 Curren 2012 benzene sweet solvent 3600 12000 Curren 2012 butanal malty/burnt 9 30 Curren 2012 butyric acid rancid, sour, perspiration 3.9 10 Curren 2012 butyl acetate fruity 200 900 Curren 2012 carbon disulfide rotten 100 300 Curren 2012 chlorobenzene almond 700 3500 Curren 2012 chloroform sweet, ethereal 12000 59000 Curren 2012 crotonaledehyde pungent 36.7 105 Curren 2012 decanal not found 0.9 6 Curren 2012

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Odor-causing compounds in landfills

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

Odorant Descriptor OTC (ppbv) OTC(μg/m3) Reference decane gasoline 700 4400 Curren 2012 dichloromethane ethereal 12000 59000 Curren 2012 dimethyl disulfide sour,onion 10 50 Curren 2012 dimethyl sulfide decayig vegetation 2 6 Curren 2012 ethylbenzene aromatic 3 10 Curren 2012 formic acid 28000 55000 Curren 2012 hexanal fatty,green 10 60 Curren 2012 hydrogen sulfide rotten egg 20 30 Curren 2012 indene not found 9 40 Curren 2012 isopropyl benzene sharp, aromatic 8 39.2 Curren 2012 limonene lemon 400 2500 Curren 2012 methyl mercaptan decayed cabbage 1 2 Curren 2012 naphthalene math bakks, tar 40 100 Curren 2012 nonanal not found 2 10 Curren 2012 nonane not found 1300 6800 Curren 2012

SLIDE 13

10

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Odor-causing compounds in landfills

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

Odorant Descriptor OTC (ppbv) OTC(μg/m3) Reference m-xylene sweet 300 1500 Curren 2012

catanal

not found 1 7 Curren 2012

ctane

gasoline 5800 28000 Curren 2012

-xylene

sweet 900 3800 Curren 2012 pentanal pungent 6 20 Curren 2012 propanal sharp 30 70 Curren 2012 propanoic acid vinegar, sour 28 84 Curren 2012 p-xylene sweet 500 2200 Curren 2012 styrene solvent, rubber 100 600 Curren 2012 tetrachloroethene sweet 4900 130000 Curren 2012 trimethylamine fishy 2 6 Curren 2012 valeric acid fecal, sour 5 20 Curren 2012 vinyl acetate sweet 600 2200 Curren 2012

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Technology

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Odor Detection & Monitoring

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

Technique Kind Method Advantages Disadvantages Reference Chemical analyses Analytical Gas chromat.-Mass

spectr. (GC-MS)

Detection of pollutants with low odor detection which may originate odor nuisance, useful to analyze odour composition in order to design intervention and treatment strategies, more

bjective, repeatable and

accurate Difficulty of relating the chemical composition of an odorous mixture to its olfactory properties, provide little information about the odorant real impact on human receptors Capelli 2008, Lebrero 2011 Dynamic olfactometry Sensorial Use of human nose as a sensor Determine the odor concentrations (Cod), giving indicative values of sensory impacts that are liable to affect off-site, the most common approach Variability of human olfaction between different subjects, highly costly (226-340 $ per measurement), time consuming Capelli 2008, Lebrero 2011 Electronic noses Senso-instrumental Artificial noses which can distinguish between different

dors, single odorants

such as H2S and NH3 have been commonly used as surrogate markers Make some assumptions about the landfill odor impact

n the points where

instruments are installed, effectively used as management tool in order to monitor site changes or

perational failures

Depend critically on a set of

perational choices (working

conditions,measurment settings,data processing methods,etc.), provide

nly a partial characterization of
dorous emssions because H2S and

NH3 are not always responsible for the entire odor nuisance, problems with reliability and sensitivity- especially to temperature and humidity Capelli 2008, Lebrero 2011, Capelli 2014

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

H2S

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM) (B.Singleton, FWEA, Feb 2016) Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

H2S Monitoring

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM) Jerome Meter Detection Tubes Lead Acetate/Silver Nitrate Tapes Lead Acetate/ Silver Nitrate Monitor Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Impacts on the Odor Strength

Type of waste – Certain wastes smell worse than others
Volume of potentially odorous material – A small

amount of odorous waste can be quickly covered, or may not be noticeable, while larger amounts spread over a wider area and managed improperly, may cause problems

Time required to unload and cover – Waste that is

covered quickly produces less odor

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

SLIDE 14

11

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Impacts on the Odor Strength

Meteorological and topographic conditions – Wind

speed and direction, humidity, terrain, and precipitation have an influence on transporting odor

Size of working face – If the working face is small, daily

cover can effectively limit odor transmission

Time of day – Odor problems decrease when breezes

are strongest, typically in the afternoon, since odor can be dispersed

(NSWMA 2008)

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM) Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016 Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

Odor Mitigation

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Odor Mitigation Technologies

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

Technology Method Impact Cost Reference

Process modification

Altering the process at the waste management facility to reduce the production of odorous compounds (e.g.. Changing the type and size of seals and gaskets, substituting alternative materials in the manufacturing process, etc.) Very effective in reducing potential odor complaints by diminishing the emissions of

dorous compounds at the source

Kehoe 1996

Incineration

The oxidation of the hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide and water vapour Most commonly used today, very effective when high efficiencies are required and the odourous compounds are combustible hydrocarbons, high investment and operation cost up to 395$ m−3 h−1 for investment and 135$ m−3 h−1 for

peration cost

Kehoe 1996, Lebrero 2011

Adsorption

The adsorbent binds more and more

f the adsorbed

compounds Effective technology when the concentration of the odorous compound is high and can possibly be recycled for reuse by the source, process efficiency decrease with time, which requires the control technology to incorporate some means of regenerating the adsorbent without interruption

f the ongoing process

Kehoe 1996

Biofiltration

Use

f a bed of biologically activated

material through which the exhaust stream is fed, the microorganisms living within the bed metabolize the pollutants through aerobic degradation to produce carbon dioxide, water and microbial biomass Successfully employed for exhaust streams which contain volatile organic compounds, most common biotechnology in WWTP, environmentally friendly Kehoe 1996, Lebrero 2011

Odour masking

Addition of a single or two or more compounds to an

dourous pollutant to produce a

cancellation of the odourous impact Process is limited by geography-the farther from the source the complaint is, the less likely odour masking will be an effective solution Kehoe 1996

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Odor Mitigation Management Practices

Improve stormwater management – Water increases the

production of landfill gas, so grading and drainage to reduce and properly manage water infiltration is key

Improve working face operations – Keeping the working face

to a size that can be covered quickly, accommodating special waste and possibly even establishing alternate workface locations for days when wind conditions warrant; operators might also consider accepting the strongest smelling wastes at times when weather conditions are most favorable

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM) Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Odor Mitigation Management Practices

Adopt special operational procedures for C&D waste- Since

wet wallboard waste creates a distinctive and powerful odor, such waste must be separated and protected from stormwater; daily cover might be advisable, even in jurisdictions that don’t require it

Review or adjust waste types accepted – Waste type can

affect odors, so operators may alter the type of waste they accept in areas where odors are a problem; pre-treatment of some loads may be required to neutralize particular odor- causing compounds

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM) Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Odor Mitigation Management Practices

Establish odor complaint procedures – A complaint log,

with information on the day, date, time, weather conditions, and odor characteristics, can be a good tool; establishing a simple on-site weather station that records data on weather conditions can be used to compare complaints with

perations information to determine possible causes
Provide good cover materials – Good cover materials (soil)

can filter odor, control gas and reduce water infiltration

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

SLIDE 15

12

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Odor Mitigation Management Practices

Practice good housekeeping practices – Regular

inspection and repair of the landfill cap in closed areas keeps gas from escaping into the atmosphere

Provide temporary or permanent membrane capping –

Capping a landfill is an excellent odor barrier, and closed landfills with such caps and proper LFG systems rarely have

dor problems

(NSWMA 2008)

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM) Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Odor Mitigation Case Studies

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

Case Study Research Management Practices Cost Reference “Cava del Cane”-the project of a municipal waste landfill in an area North of Naples The study was carried out during the landfill design trying to define the management requirements, with the aim of reducing the odour emission impact on the population 1)creation of cells of 4 or 5 m in height, and the covering the waste throughout the day with a clay layer of 0.5 m minimum thickness; 2) the placement of a network of extraction wells in the waste layers to maintain the volume of waste under pressure, and the treatment of the intake air with a suitable bio-filter; 3) the scheduled spraying of water containing specific enzymes and/or odorant substances on the waste Bortone 2012 Continuous Elect.Nose Odor Monitoring System in the City of Agadir Marocco Identify the sources responsible for odors with receiving warning of incidents

dors

The areas to consider solutions which can bring about a reduction in odor are twofold; at first business process and operations, in the second introduction of new technology.At the business process and operations level:

Optimization of production periods: favorable weather

conditions favor the dispersion of odors (winds over 10 km/h and direction NNE to SSW).

Minimize outside storage time of the fish from 48 hours to 10

hours.

Optimization of flow rates and temperatures of chimneys:

minimize the flow of exhaust gases and operating temperature (no optimization is currently in place and this is a factor in maximizing nuisances). At the technological level:

Cover the surface sources
Gas scrubbing: treating outlet gas by washing with sea water
Neutralizers: use odor neutralizers, especially for large odor

sources. Chirmata 2015

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Task 4. Protein Experiments

Human Odorant Binding Protein 2A

will be synthesized

A fluorescent tag will be applied
Binding experiments with model compounds will be

performed

Determine fluorometry-based concentration-dependence

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM) Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

What’s so great about OBPIIa?

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

OBPIIa is dedicated to the detection of

chemical stimuli in the nasal epithelium of humans.

Inexpensive and easy to synthesize.
Stable to temperature, solvents and

proteolytic digestion

Broad binding affinity
Binding affinity to small VOCs in

micromolar range

Can be restored

Pelosi (2013)

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Applications of OBPIIa

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

Pelosi (2013)

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Task 4: Perform Sensitivity Experiments

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM) X ray structure of OBP IIa

Image credit: Schiefner 2015

We have acquired the OBPIIa cDNA sequence cloned in

the expression vector of bacteria, Pichia pastoris.

SLIDE 16

13

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016 Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

Crystal structure of OBP IIa

Schiefner (2015)

The clone containing the amino

acid sequence will be used as a target for PCR amplification in bacterial form with plasmid

Vogt (1991)

Task 4: Perform Sensitivity Experiments

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016 Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

Crystal structure of OBP IIa

Schiefner (2015)

PCR (polymerase chain reaction)

allows us to make millions of copies of the DNA sequence that codes for the protein.

Vogt (1991)

Task 4: Perform Sensitivity Experiments

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Protein Expression

We will use an expression vector as a kind of factory to

synthesize odorant binding protein IIa.

Then the protein will be purified and tagged with a

fluorescent marker.

Recombinant protein expression, Guan (1990)

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM) Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016 [ On ]

Fluorescent Tagging

Tagged Protein Odorant Molecule Fluorescent Tag [ Off ] Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM) Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Task 4: Perform Sensitivity Experiments

The spectrometer will allow us to

visualize odorant binding protein fluorescing as it binds to odorants

Spectra Suite software provides

graphical and numeric representation of spectra from each spectrometer

An increase in odor concentration

should correlate with higher spectral absorbance

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM) Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Upcoming Research Tasks

TASK 5. Assess odor mitigation strategies
TASK 6. Develop recommendations and preliminary cost analysis
TASK 7. Prepare publication materials
Continue to update the literature review
Clone, synthesize and express the protein of OBP2A
Design and build or purchase a vacuum chamber or other appropriate chamber in

which to expose fluorescently marked OBP2A to volatile odorants individually and then from a field sample of solid waste odorants

Calibrate and test spectrometer to ensure proper functioning

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

SLIDE 17

14

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Acknowledgements

Dr. Daniel Meeroff, Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatics

Engineering, FAU

Dr. David Binninger, Department of Biological Sciences FAU
Dr. Loic Briand, Center for Taste and Feeding Behavior, Univ. de

Bourgogne

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM) Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Data Gathering

What are the major odorants of concern at your facility?
What odor detection and monitoring techniques are used at your

facility?

What most impacts the efficiency of data collection at your facility?
Which emissions cause the most odor complaints?
What odor mitigation technologies are used at your facility?
Lessons learned?

Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016

Upcoming Research Tasks

TASK 5. Assess odor mitigation strategies
TASK 6. Develop recommendations and preliminary cost analysis
TASK 7. Prepare publication materials
Continue to update the literature review
Clone, synthesize and express the protein of OBP2A
Calibrate and test spectrometer to ensure proper functioning
Design/build or purchase a vacuum chamber to expose fluorescently

labeled OBP2A to selected odorants

Test for concentration dependence

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM) Technical Advisory Group Meeting FAU ▪ March 18, 2016 Technical Advisory Group Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 FAU Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

SLIDE 18

1

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2018

Florida Atlantic University College of Engineering & Computer Science

“Safe Discharge of Landfill Leachate to the Environment”

Joseph Lakner

Laboratories for Engineered Environmental Solutions

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Landfill Leachate

1976 RCRA
1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendment
1991 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendment

http://www.groundwateruk.org/Image-Gallery.aspx http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/landfill6.htm http://blog.idrenvironmental.com/how-does-leachate-contaminate-our-water-supply

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Regulations

Regulated Parameter Units Maximum Daily Maximum Monthly Average BOD mg/L as O2 140 37 TSS mg/L 88 27 Ammonia mg/L as N 10 4.9 α-Terpineol mg/L 0.033 0.016 Benzoic acid mg/L 0.12 0.071 ρ-Cresol mg/L 0.025 0.014 Phenol mg/L 0.026 0.015 Zinc mg/L 0.20 0.11 pH Standard units 6-9 6-9 USEPA Non-Hazardous Waste Landfill Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Regulations

Primary Drinking Water Standards
Secondary Drinking Water Standards
Local and State Regulations

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Leachate Treatment

Off-Site Transfer
Recirculation
On-Site Treatment
Deep Well Injection

http://www.bkt21.com/landfill-leachate-treatment/

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Problem Statement

Treat Landfill

Leachate

Mature Leachate

Surface Water Discharge

The most

complex discharge requirements

Industrial Reuse

Irrigation,

cooling water

Hardness

scaling

Dilution Water

To reduce

leachate clogging

SLIDE 19

2

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Dyer Park Landfill

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Problem Statement

Parameter Units Surface Discharge Treatment Goal Surface Discharge Source Reclaimed Water Treatment Goal Dilution Water Treatment Goal COD mg/L as O2 125 EU Extensive Wastewater Treatment Process None None Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 20-600 F.A.C 62-302-500 332 Index * Calcium mg/L as CaCO3 50 Ryznar Index 78.7 Index* pH Standard Units 6.5-8.5 EPA Secondary Drinking Water Standard 6.5-8.5 None Ammonia (NH3-N) mg/L 4.9 USEPA 10. CFR 445.21 20 None BOD mg/L as O2 20 F.A.C 62-550 30 None Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Values Tested for during 2014-15

Parameter Mean Values from of Dyer Park ( Statom, 2004) Mean Values of Dyer Park (Lakner 2014- 15) Regulation MCL BOD mg/l 47 32 20 Ammonia (as Nh3) mg/L 473.01 351 4.9 Total dissolved solids mg/L 3,442 2,786 500 COD mg/l 835 473 125 Alkalinity mg/L 2,453 1,419 20-600 Calcium mg/L 176 893 50 pH 7.07 7.35 6.5-8.5 Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

SWA Leachate Quantity

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 Leachate Generation (gallons per month) Year

Dyer Park
80 acres
30 acres capped
4:1 Side slopes
62 inches of rain

annually

112,000 gallons a

month

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Treatment Selection

Advanced Oxidation

Process

Chemical Process that

produces hydroxyl radicals

Ozone
Hydrogen Peroxide
Semiconductor and UV
Reduce organics to CO2

and H2O

Oxidation Species Symbol Relative Oxidation Power Positively charged hole

n

titanium dioxide (h+) 2.35 Hydroxyl radical (OH·) 2.05 Ozone (O3) 1.52 Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) 1.31 Permanganate (MnO4

)

1.24 Hypochlorous acid (HOCl) 1.10 Chlorine (Cl2) 1.00 Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Photocatalytic Oxidation

Ultraviolet Radiation +

Semiconductor

Simple, one stage process
Ultraviolet Light
Titanium Dioxide

SLIDE 20

3

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

How Does Photocatalysis Work?

h+ e‐

Mn+

(aq)

M0

(s)

[ Photoreduction ]

f metals

+

hν

[ Photooxidation ]

f organics

Oxygen Water

Titanium Dioxide

Proton Hydroxyl radical Water and carbon dioxide

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Methodology

Leachate Collection

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Methodology

Falling Film Reactor

G.U.N.T. 1.0
Reservoir (14L)
Temperature Sensor
Pump (360 L/h)
Flow Regulator
Sampling Port
3 Way Valve
Weir Compartment
UV Power Source (150W)

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Methodology

Flow Through Reactor

Reservoir (10L)
Temperature Sensor
Pump (360 L/h)
Flow Regulator
Sampling Port
3 Way Valve
Weir Compartment

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Methodology

Full Spectrum Reactor

Reservoir (10L)
Temperature Sensor
Pump (360 L/h)
Flow Regulator
Sampling Port
3 Way Valve
Weir Compartment

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Methodology

Improving COD Removal with Catalyst

Stock solution of 5 g/L TiO2
80 ml in each test tube
Selected metal in tube
Zinc, Aluminum, Steel Wool

and Combinations of these catalysts

Test of 1 hour

SLIDE 21

4

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Methodology

Electron Magnetic Oxygen Hydrogen (EMOH)

Pump Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Methodology

Electron Magnetic Oxygen Hydrogen (EMOH)

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Methodology

Electron Magnetic Oxygen Hydrogen (EMOH)

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Methodology

Pre-Treatment

TiO2 dose and filter
30 g/L
5-micron filter
Pre-settle with TiO2
30 g/L mix for 5 minutes
Settle 1 hour
Decant

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Methodology

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

23 Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Methodology

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 (100 ml)

24

SLIDE 22

5

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Methodology

Experimental Protocol

Temperature and pH reading taken
Centrifuge or filter TiO2
Test centrifuged sample for COD, ammonia,

alkalinity and pH and calcium hardness and total hardness.

Monitor off gas to determine where ammonia and

COD end up

25 Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Methodology

Intensity of UV Light

Turn on lamp
Reach 90°C
Take reading with Fisher Scientific UV light meter

06-662-65 and Sper Scientific 850010 UV-C

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Methodology

Intensity of UV Light

Light Density
∗
1000

∗ ∗

∗

∗ 1 3600 ∗ ∗ 3600

Technical Advisory Group Meeting

March 18, 2016

Methodology

Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
High Range COD digestion vials
Ammonia-nitrogen
Medium Range
1:50 dilution
High Range
1:10 dilution
Total alkalinity
Hach digital titrator
Phenolphthalein indicator
Bromcresol green-methyl red

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Methodology

pH
Hach HQ40d Portable pH
Calcium and total hardness Medium Range
Hach digital titration method with EDTA
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Hach IntelliCAL BOD LDO probe

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Result

SLIDE 23

6

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

Improving COD Removal with Catalyst

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

Intensity of UV Light

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 Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

Intensity of UV Light

Test TiO2 (g/L) Lamp Used (W) Reactor Used Light Intensity UV-C (J/L) Light Intensity UV-A&B (J/L) 06/05/2014 5 150 Falling Film 900 62 06/12/2014 5 450 Falling Film 1 933 06/18/2014 5 450 Flow Through 205 191,000 06/26/2014 5 150 Flow Through 187,200 12,980 08/11/2014 10 450 Flow Through Aerated 225 210,600 08/28/2014 5 150 Flow Through Aerated 185,200 12,840

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

Intensity of UV Light

Experiment Tio2 g/L Type of Test Co Cf % Removal Treatment Goal Met Surface Discharge Reclaimed Water Dilution Water COD mg/L as O2 5-10 Falling Film or Flow Through Aerated 341 255 25

 

Ammonia (as NH3-N) mg/L 5-10 Falling Film or Flow Through Aerated 243 133 45



Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 5-10 Falling Film or Flow Through Aerated 1550 1050 33 Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

Intensity of UV Light
Conclusion
Falling film 450-W had 13% more COD removal
Falling film 150-W had 40% more ammonia removal
Falling film had 20% more alkalinity removal
T-Test show no statistical difference in COD and ammonia.

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

150-W Falling Film

Experiment Tio2 g/L Type of Test Co Cf % Removal Treatment Goal Met Surface Discharge Reclaimed Water Dilution Water COD mg/L as O2 2-10 Falling Film 203 170 16

 

Ammonia (as NH3-N) mg/L 2-10 Falling Film 276 232 16



Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 2-10 Falling Film 300 136 55

  

Cal. as CaCO3

mg/L 2-10 Falling Film 400 70 83



SLIDE 24

7

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

150-W Falling Film
Conclusion
COD removal no improvement
Ammonia removal no improvement
Alkalinity removal no improvement
Calcium removal no improvement
T-Test show no statistical difference in COD, ammonia and alkalinity.

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

Full Spectrum UV

Experiment Tio2 g/L Type of Test Co Cf % Removal Treatment Goal Met Surface Discharge Reclaimed Water Dilution Water COD mg/L as O2 15-30 Falling Film 486 379 28

 

Ammonia (as NH3-N) mg/L 15-30 Falling Film 410 370 7



Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 15-30 Falling Film 1290 740 39

Cal. as CaCO3

mg/L 15-30 Falling Film 550 44 92

  

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

Full Spectrum UV
Conclusion
Ammonia aeration effect removal
Alkalinity less TiO2 removes more, no change over single lamp
Calcium more TiO2 removes more, no change over single lamp

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

EMOH Advanced Oxidation Process
Trailer

Sample DO (mg/L) TDS (g/L) pH Total Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) Conductivity (mS/cm) COD mg/L as O2 COD % Removal Leachate Sample Time 0 5.25 0.437 7.99 230 0.673 281

Leachate Sample

Time 5 5.63 0.376 8.02 230 0.579 103 63 Leachate Sample Time 10 5.97 0.587 7.63 210 0.903 91 67 Leachate Sample Time 15 6.12 0.669 7.71 330 1.029 79 71 Leachate Sample Time 20 5.53 0.677 7.75 360 1.026 83 70 Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

EMOH Advanced Oxidation Process
Bench Scale EMOH

Sample (Min) Temp. ( °C) DO mg/L pH Total Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)

Cal. as

CaCO3 mg/L NH3-N mg/L COD mg/L as O2 COD % Removal 18.5 7.53 7.53 1360 590 268 427

1

18.5 9.41 7.77 1250 530 265 403 5 3 18.5 9.43 7.92 1250 590 256 470

10

5 18.5 9.41 8 1350 450 326 401 6 10 20.3 9.06 8.15 1240 420 267 404 5 15 21.9 8.82 8.28 1270 500 302 402 5 30 21.9 8.82 8.54 1080 440 294 403 5 Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

EMOH Advanced Oxidation Process/UV/ TiO2

Experiment Tio2 g/L Type of Test Co Cf % Removal Treatment Goal Met Surface Discharge Reclaimed Water Dilution Water COD mg/L as O2 0-5 Falling Film + EMOH 305 175 43

 

Ammonia (as NH3-N) mg/L 0-5 Falling Film + EMOH 317 167 47



Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 0-5 Falling Film + EMOH 1066 477 55

 

Cal. as CaCO3

mg/L 0-5 Falling Film + EMOH 371 15 96

  

SLIDE 25

8

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

EMOH Advanced Oxidation Process
Conclusion
Basic falling film removed 20% COD but UV/ TiO2 / EMOH removed 43%
Ammonia up from 32% to 47%
Alkalinity up from 36% to 55%
Calcium up from 51% to 96%

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

Reaction Kinetics 48 hour Experiment

Experiment Tio2 g/L Type of Test Co Cf % Removal Treatment Goal Met Surface Discharge Reclaimed Water Dilution Water COD mg/L as O2 8- 12.6 Falling Film + EMOH 619 330 47

 

Ammonia (as NH3-N) mg/L 8- 12.6 Falling Film + EMOH 285 93 68



Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 8- 12.6 Falling Film + EMOH 957 321 66

  

Cal. as CaCO3

mg/L 8- 12.6 Falling Film + EMOH 75 0.8 99

  

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

Pre-Treatment

Experiment Tio2 g/L Type of Test Co Cf % Removal Treatment Goal Met Surface Discharge Reclaimed Water Dilution Water COD mg/L as O2 2-8 Falling Film + EMOH 366 149 63

 

Ammonia (as NH3-N) mg/L 2-8 Falling Film + EMOH 316 149 53



Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 2-8 Falling Film + EMOH 1762 470 73

 

Cal. as CaCO3

mg/L 2-8 Falling Film + EMOH 479 10 98

  

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

BOD Generation

Sample Leachate Quantity mL Raw Initial DO0 as O2 mg/L Raw Final DO5 as O2 mg/L Raw BOD5 Treated Initial DO0 as O2 mg/L Treated Final DO5 as O2 mg/L Treated BOD5 Blank 9.24 9.05 Na 9.24 9.05 Na Seeded Blank 9.22 8.514 Na 9.22 8.514 Na B20 20 9.01 6.86 32.28 9.03 6.70 34.89 B50 50 8.44 3.10 32.05 9.13 4.43 28.18 B20 Seeded 20 9.02 5.01 46.21 9.03 5.72 36.35 B50 Seeded 50 8.84 1.73 32.04 9.05 2.65 28.43 Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

Pre-Treatment
Conclusion
COD removal for TiO2 pre-treatment 42%, no change from EMOH/TiO2
Ammonia removal for TiO2 pre-treatment 53% up from 47% for EMOH/TiO2.
Alkalinity removal for TiO2 pre-treatment 67% up from 55% for EMOH/TiO2.
Calcium removal for TiO2 pre-treatment 94% down from 96% for

EMOH/TiO2.

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

Reaction Kinetics
K1 Pre-treatment removal rate
K2 Initial photocatalytic removal

rate

K3 Pretreatment and initial

removal rate combined

K4 Long-term removal by

photocatalytic process

K5 Total removal first order

reaction rate.

SLIDE 26

9

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Results

Reaction Kinetic

Experiment COD Treatment for Surface Discharge (hr.) NH3-N Treatment for Surface Discharge (hr.)

Alk. Treatment for

Surface Discharge (hr.)

Cal. Treatment for

Surface Discharge (hr.) July 29, 2015 COD k1 2.7 24.3 1.7 1.5 July 29, 2015 COD k2 21.7 562 17.9 6.5 July 29, 2015 COD k3 34.4 76.7 4.8 3.4 July 29, 2015 COD k4 41.1 53.2 9.1 15.7 July 29, 2015 COD k5 20.1 62 8.6 7.2 48 Hour COD k1 77.2 Na 8.6 17.9 48 Hour COD k2 28.1 806 20.2 6.3 48 Hour COD k3 34.4 1124 14.6 7.7 48 Hour COD k4 410 202 45.3 34.8 48 Hour COD k5 125 185 42.3 26.4 Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Conclusion

Summary
8 Different reactors configuration
Best configuration was pre-treatment followed by EMOH/UV/ TiO2
Best results showed 62% removal of COD, 50% removal of ammonia, 73% removal of

alkalinity and 98% removal of calcium.

UV-C is the best spectrum of light to use with TiO2
COD is not being converted into BOD
Finding why the K3 reaction is not sustained is key to further development.

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Cost

10 g/L TiO2 dose

Capital Cost Units Unit Cost Total Cost TiO2 chemical costs 504 $1,390 $700,560 150,000 Gallon Tank 2 $225,000 $450,000 UV lamps/ballast/lens 504 $2,000 $1,008,000 Pumps/blowers/plumbing/etc. $2 $50,000 $100,000 Total capital cost $2,258,560 O&M costs Electric ($0.12/kW-hr) 12 $8,000 $96,000 Employees 12 $16,000 $192,000 Maintenance $23,614 Total O&M $311,615 Annualized (6%, 20 years) 12 $16,181 $194,172 Total annual costs $505,787 Cost per 1000 gallons (1.8 million gallons) $280.99 Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016

Acknowledgements

Technical Advisory Group Meeting March 18, 2016