Download as PDF, PPTX
![Wastewater Analysis
• Calculation of TSS
TSS (mg/L)=([A−B]*1000)/C
Where
A = End weight of the filter
B = Initial weight of the filter
C = Volume of water filtered](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/group-204-140205084551-phpapp02/75/Group-4-27-2048.jpg)
Uploaded byRona Feleo
Group 4
This document summarizes a study on using ceramic membrane filtration for treating oily wastewater. The key findings are: 1) Ceramic membrane filtration was found to be an effective method for removing pollutants from oily wastewater, achieving over 85% removal of oil and grease, and over 98% removal of total suspended solids and turbidity. 2) The optimal operating parameters were determined to be a transmembrane pressure of 1.25 bar, cross-flow velocity of 2.25 m/s, and temperature of 32.5°C. 3) Periodic backwashing was able to recover 95% of the original flux, but chemical cleaning was required when flux
Group 4
- 1. Article Report S. R.H. Abadi, M. R. Sebzari, M. Hemati, F. Rekabdar, T. Mohammadi Group 4 | 5ChEC February 1, 2014 Casillan|Feleo|Liggayu|Manabat|Taruc|Trumata
- 2. Background of theStudy
- 3. Oily Wastewater • mainpollutants emitted into water by industry and domestic sewage • major pollution problem due to its distinctive characteristics
- 4. Why membrane separation? Membraneseparation have 1. high oil removal efficiency 2. low energy cost 3. compact design
- 5. What type ofmembrane to use? Ceramic membrane
- 6. Why ceramic membrane? Advantages oit has the ability to accomplish the current regulatory treatment objectives with no chemical pretreatment o higher fluxes o resistance to mechanical, thermal, and chemical stress allows better recovery of membrane performance
- 7. What type ofceramic membrane? Alpha-Al2O3 o chemically very inert o usable in pH range of 1 to 14 o no limitations in temperature and pH when using standard membrane cleaners o produces lower refluxes as compared with zirconia and ZrO2 based on past studies
- 8.
- 9.
- 10. Ceramic Membrane • Tubularceramic membrane • Pore size of 0.2 micron • With a stainless steel housing
- 12. Process Feed • Outletof the API unit of Tehran refinery was used as a feed • The feed was taken daily and used immediately • Original temperature = 25-30oC • Characterization was required to ensure existence of oil emulsion • Drop size was below 20 microns, which indicated emulsified oil in water mixture
- 13. Pilot System • Hasthree loops in the system (main, backwashing, and chemical washing loop) • Main Loop – cross flow MF processing as it started from TK-101 • The P-101 pumps the feed from TK-101 to the bottom of the membrane module and was fed to the membrane channels • Cross flow configuration
- 14. Pilot System • Carriedout in a total recycle mode of filtration, where retentate and permeate were continuously recirculated into the feed tank by using V-03 and V-01 • Feed concentration remained virtually constant • Backwashing Loop – contained a backwashing tank (TK-02)
- 15. Pilot System • Hotdistilled water was used as a backflash from TK-102 using P-102 • V-104 was opened to send hot water into the membrane from the permeate side • Chemical cleaning was used if recovery of permeate flux is necessary • To start cleaning, TK-103 was filled with chemical agents and pumped towards the membrane using P-101.
- 16. Pilot System • Therewas a heater and coil of cooling water to control temperature • Two analog flow meters in the way of feed and permeate streams • Tank Volume = 90 L • TMP = 0.75-1.75 bar • CFV = 0.75-2.25 m/s • Temperature = 35-40oC
- 17.
- 20. Placement of membrane in module Stablizationof membrane • Experimental Procedure Rinsing of the system measurement of pure water flux Introduction of oil emulsion in tank Measurement of permeation • Pre-heated to a desired temp • Adjustment of operating pressure & CFV • Using a flow meter
- 21. Experimental Procedure • Difference betweenthe steady-state pure water fluxes was taken as a measure of the membrane fouling tendency • Each run consisted of: forward filtration time: 280 s backwashing filtration time: 15 s rest time: 5 s
- 22. Membrane Cleaning The membranewas cleaned and regenerated between subsequent runs as follows, after every 90 min. operation: Rinse with clean and hot water Clean with an alkaline cleaner Cleaning procedure: first 10 min. with a closed permeate outlet 20 min. with an opened permeate outlet temperature: 75 – 80 degC
- 23. Membrane Cleaning: Backwashing •Membrane is hydraulically backwashed with hot water ( high pressure with a max. value of 2 bars for 15 s) • reversed-flow: to flush the membrane pores from the permeate side; releasing of retained materials in pores
- 24. Membrane Cleaning: Chemical cleaning •used when flux was decreased to 40 – 50% of its original value • chemical solutions were prepared in chemical tank • added chemicals depend on the material to be flushed out: to remove organic scales: NaOH solution @ 70 – 80 °C to remove inorganic scales: Citric acid solution @ 70 – 80 °C
- 25. Wastewater Analysis • TOCestimation using TOC Analyzer (Model DC-190) • Oil and grease content values were estimated using the FTIR spectrometer set to scan 2930 /cm TOG/TPH Analyzer Infracal (USA) Wilks Enterprise
- 26. Wastewater Analysis • TSSvalues were analyzed by the procedure outlined in the standard methods (ASTM 2540D) using Whatman 2.5 cm GF/C-Class Microfiber • water sample was filtered through a pre-weighed filter. •The residue retained on the filter was dried in an oven at 103–105 °C until the weight of the filter became constant.
- 27. Wastewater Analysis • Calculationof TSS TSS (mg/L)=([A−B]*1000)/C Where A = End weight of the filter B = Initial weight of the filter C = Volume of water filtered
- 28. Wastewater Analysis • Turbidityvalues were estimated using a Turbidimeter (Model 2100A HACH) • Droplet size distribution of the emulsified oil in water was estimated using Laser Light Scattering (LLS) Method using LLS instrument (SEMATech laboratory — SEM-633)
- 29. Important parameters inMF • Permeate flux • TOC removal efficiency • Fouling resistance
- 30. Permeate Flux Each membranehas a special unique resistance which depends on its pore size and other properties. This resistance known as Rm, can be calculated using the initial flux of deionized water (Jwi) according to the following equation:
- 31. Permeate Flux The resistanceobserved after feed filtration can be calculated using flux of deionized water after fouling and washing with water (Jww). This resistance is known as Rf and is the hydraulic resistance of the surface adsorption and pore plugging and is calculated using the following equation:
- 32. Oil Removal Efficiency Theoil removal efficiency can be evaluated according to the value of TOC removal efficiency (RTOC), which is defined as: Where TOCfeed is TOC concentration in the feed and TOCpermeat is TOC concentration in the permeate (mg/L).
- 33.
- 34.
- 35. Effect of TMP •Higher TMP results in droplets to pass rapidly through the membrane pores, so more oil droplets accumulate on the membrane surface and consequently in the membrane pores, leading to membrane fouling
- 36.
- 37. Effect of TMP •ForTMP above 1.25 bar, oil and grease droplets can pass through the membrane pores and so TOC removal efficiency decreases; TMP above 1.25 bar is not appropriate for a high effluent quality • increasing TMP increases Rf severely (more tendency to cake/gel on membrane surface resulting in Rf growth)
- 38.
- 39. Effect of CFV •Increasing CFV promotes turbulence and mass transfer coefficient. • increasing CFV up to 2.25 m/s increases permeate flux and simultaneously decreases fouling resistance • At higher CFV, high shear rate and turbulence sweep the deposited particles away from the membrane surface; therefore, the fouling layer on the membrane surface is made thinner and more natural organic matter can pass through the membrane
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43. Effect of temperature •has double effects on permeation flux: • increase in temp lowers viscosity, increase in permeate flux • increase in temp increases osmotic pressure, decrease in permeate flux • increasing temp. decreases fouling resistance (higher oil solubility) • however, at higher temp, oil and grease could easily permeate, giving a lower TOC removal efficiency
- 44. Effect of temperature •running the system at a higher temperature increases its operational costs. Based on the results, a temperature of 32.5 °C can be recommended to achieve high permeation flux at low operational costs.
- 45.
- 46. Effect of backwashing •It is possible to recover 95% of the original flux by backwashing; continues backwashing removes oil and particulates that block membrane pores • However, as the operation goes on, more severe fouling is observed since oil and particulates that pass through the ceramic membrane are adsorbed and accumulate within the porous ceramic membrane
- 47. Effect of backwashing •For a very long operation, it is not effective for flux restoration; a flux decline of up to 40% of original flux was observed. • Chemical cleaning should be used to regenerate the ceramic membrane.
- 48. MF versus biologicaltreatment method
- 49.
- 50. Conclusion MF process wasmore preferred and can replace the conventional biological method for the treatment of API effluent of Tehran Refinery. The results showed that the optimum parameters for the said treatment are: – TMP: 1.25 bar – CFV: 2.25 m/s – Temperature: 32.5 o C.
- 51. Conclusion Analysis of theMF process shows decline of oil and grease content of 85%, TSS of 100% and 98.6% of Turbidity. To remove reversible fouling, Backwashing process was applied. Periodic Backwashing prevents the flux to decline and the results show that it can possibly recover 95% of the original flux. However, when the permeate flux was reduced to 40 to 50% of its original value, a chemical cleansing is required for a long term operation.
- 52. THE END Thank youfor listening!