WSE Publication No.

796

Design Manual
and Tutorial Particle/Liquid Separation Systems
Featuring Inclined Corrugated Plates
For Treatment of Process Water, Potable Water & Wastewater
Built By:

WaterSmart
Environmental, Inc.
Shawnee Mission, Kansas

Prepared for: Website Visitor

WaterSmart Environmental, Inc. is a manufacturer of highly engineered water purification components and systems. The company designs and builds a wide variety of water treatment equipment including packaged water and wastewater treatment plants, UltraPaq aerobic package plants, OAT Process anaerobic digesters with associated energy production, aerators, filters, dissolved air flotation separators, air strippers, complete skid assembled aqueous waste treatment plants, FilterFresh skid mounted potable water production plants, skid mounted wastewater treatment systems for laundromats, laundries, and car/truck wash facilities with water reclamation and reuse, softeners, demineralizers, activated carbon treatment equipment, and water purifiers for domestic and international markets. The company provides laboratory testing services, treatment recommendation, equipment sizing and specifications, plan layouts, and budget price estimates. Its products are sold nationally and internationally through locally based sales representatives, distributors, or licensees. The Energy and Power Management Division of the company designs and provides Energy Management Control Systems for large office buildings, malls, hospitals, and similar facilities. Reduction of combined or total energy costs by 30% or more can frequently be achieved. WaterSmart Environmental, Inc (WSE), manufactured PuriSep separator plants are designed as modern, cost-effective particle removal equipment for treatment of process water, potable water, and wastewaters by municipal, industrial, and governmental users. In general, separators are used to remove large quantities of small particles from a liquid flow stream. These particles range in size from 1 to 250 microns in size with varying densities. For the vast majority of applications, separators are today regarded as better performing and more costeffective particle removal devices than traditional clarifiers. The company also supplies RainDrain Perimeter Trench Dual Media Filtration Systems (see WSE Publication No. 2195) for stormwater treatment through its national marketing organization. In addition, the company has pioneered the development of the OPCT (Optimized Physical/Chemical Treatment, see WSE Publication No. 995) process which may be considered whenever chemical precipitation is one of the treatment options. PuriSep separators are classified according to their treatment application. Occasionally, more than on type of process treatment will be required to achieve the desired degree of particle removal. Accordingly, PuriSep separation systems may include flocculation, chemical feed, dissolved air flotation (DAF), and multiple stage treatment. The PuriSep technology permits the removal of any kind or type of particles from a liquid, regardless of its size, density, concentration, or presence of other particles. WaterSmart can recommend the most suitable treatment system for your particle separation project. Fundamental separator theory and general design concepts are covered under each products treatment application section. WaterSmart Environmental, Inc. takes great pride in supplying treatment equipment and energy management control systems that work as represented and as required for each application undertaken.

Table of Contents
General Theory Differential Gravity Separation Of Particles Reynolds Number Design Differences Effect Of Plate Spacing Materials Of Construction Froude Number Internal Hydraulics Particle Coalescence PuriSep Separators Application Engineering Considerations Particle Removal By Simple Gravity Particle Removal By Induced Gravity Flocculation Dissolved Air Flotation DAF Air Dissolution DAF Air Release Summary Table I Water Viscosities & Densities API & Baum Gravity Tables & Weight Table II Factors Viscosity & Specific Gravity Of ComTable III mon Liquids Table IV Viscosity Conversion Table Solids Separation Application Data Table V Common Surface Loading Rates Sludge Removal Considerations Solids Separator Selection Table VI Overflow/Settling Rates Application Data Sheet Oil Water Separators Application Data Types Of Oily Impurities And Their Separation Table VII Treatment Options Emulsion Breaking Sizing Procedure 1 2 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Table VIII Sources Of Oily Waste True Inclined Plate Separators Plate Inclination Angle Free Oil Removal Table IX Projected Separation Area Table X Particle Concentrations The Relationship Between Projected And Effective Plate Separation Area Surface Area Square Feet Of Projected Area Per Cubic Foot Of Media Table XI Plate Spacing Per Angle Of Inclination The Relationship Between Capacity And Performance Oil Particle Size To Be Removed APIs STS Number Treatment Of Mechanically Elmusified Oil Treatment Of Chemically Elmusified Oil Treatment Of Dissolved Oil Upgrading Existing Inadequate Oil/Water Separators Coalescers Sludge Removal Considerations Maintenance Flow Bypassing Fixed Oil Weirs Marketplace Misrepresentation Recommended Specifications Laboratory Testing Application Data Sheet Flotation Separators Application Data Table XII PuriSep System By Types Of Particles Present Sludge Removal Considerations DAF Separator Selection Laboratory Testing Application Data Sheet 28 28 32 33 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 35 36 37 37 37 37 39 39 39 39 40 42 43 43 45

19 20 20 20 21 23

47 48 48 48 48 49

25 26 27 27 27

General Theory
Differential Gravity Separation of Particles
Gravity clarification permits removal of particles that exhibit densities different from their carrier fluid. Separation is accomplished by detaining the flow stream for a sufficient time to permit particles to separate out. In water and wastewater treatment practice, particles which rise to the surface of a liquid are said to possess Rise Rates, while particles which settle to the bottom exhibit Settling Rates. Both types obey Stoke's Law, which establishes the theoretical terminal velocities of the rising and/or settling particles. Stoke's Law is: Vp =
G 18 (dp d c )D 2

by dividing the height of the clarifier by the particle settling velocity, or Tp =

H Vp

Particle " will reach the bottom of the clarifier (and thereby become separated from its carrier fluid) if the residence time of the liquid is at least equal to the settling time of the particle. This condition may be expressed as: Tr = Tp In substituting for Tr and Tp we have
AxH Q

where Vp = rising or settling velocity of discrete particle G = gravity constant

H Vp

which reduces to: Vp =

Q A

= absolute viscosity of carrier fluid

dp = density of particle to be removed dc = density of carrier fluid D = diameter of discrete particle A negative velocity is referred to as a RISE RATE. Oil scum, fats, greases, waxes, and other such particles that float to the surface of a liquid are said to possess Rise Rates. A positive velocity is referred to as a SETTLING RATE. All particles that settle to the bottom of a carrier fluid are said to possess Settling Rates. More often than not, both rising and settling particles are present in the same fluid stream. Traditional separation equipment frequently consists of circular and rectangular clarifiers. In a rectangular unit, for example, of height "H", surface area "A", and hydraulic capacity, or flowthrough, of "Q" (see Figure 1), the residence time "Tr " of the liquid can be determined according to the following equation: Tr =
AxH Q

(Equation #1)

Figure 1

The ratio Q/A is designated as the surface overflow rate or the surface loading of the clarifier and is expressed in either gpm/sq ft or gpd/sq ft. The surface overflow rate, then, is but a shorthand method of expressing the separation velocity Vp of the particle, which the clarifier will remove. Equation #1 is most significant to separator technology because it proves that neither the height H of the clarifier nor its residence time Tr influence particle removal efficiency. The relationship, rather, between flow and surface area (or settling area) is controlling. The foregoing elementary analysis of particle behavior applies to the ideal settling of discrete particles. Actual

Now assume that a discrete particle with a positive settling velocity or rate is suspended at the inlet top of the clarifier at point ". The time it takes, designated as "Tp", for this particle to reach the bottom can be found

results on full sized equipment are influenced by density and thermal currents, surface wind conditions, design of inlet hydraulic distributors, design of outlet hydraulic collectors, solids loading, solids characteristics, chemical feed, and other factors. The routine use of the word surface area in traditional clarifier practice is extremely unfortunate because most oil/water separator manufacturers intentionally overrate the capacity of their equipment by claiming the actual surface area of the device rather than its projected separation area. This ruse is disguised by the use of terms like effective coalescing area, coalescing area, and separation area knowing full well that a wellintentioned user will interpret the area representations in the traditional sense. For an additional discussion on this marketplace fraud see Surface Area, p. 34.

will incorporate both minimized plate spacing and minimized flow velocity. And in order to minimize the flow velocity, the cross section area of the fluid flow path must be maximized. The importance of these relationships cannot be over emphasized. Two separators with identical projected plate separation areas can exhibit dramatically different particle separation efficiencies due to separator design differences. As proof of this, lets determine the Re Number of the two separators, both using the same number of 4 foot by 8 foot plates inclined at 55 from the horizontal. By definition, then, both units contain the same projected plate separation area. Their respective efficiencies, however, as reflected by their respective Re Numbers, can vary considerably. For the first separator, use a cross flow type (flow goes from side to side) separator with 3/4 inch plate spacing at a hydraulic loading of 0.5 gpm/sq ft with water @ 68F as the carrier fluid. This is equivalent to a surfaceloading rate of 720 GPD/sq ft Re Step #1 HD =
4x8 ft (3 / 4" 12"/ ft) 8 ft + 8 ft

Reynolds Number
The Reynolds Number, abbreviated Re Number, is a mathematical identification of the presence or absence of quiescent settling conditions. When the Re Number is less than 500, particles settle out of a flow stream according to the velocities determined by Stoke's Law. Flow is said to be laminar. Laminar flow conditions permit maximum particle separation to take place. A Re Number between 500 and 1000 indicates flow conditions which are neither laminar nor turbulent. Consequently, some settling does occur, but the efficiency of separation suffers in proportion to the increasing size of the Re Number. A Re Number of above 1000 indicates turbulent flow conditions under which settling becomes ever more hindered. The Re Number may be determined according to the expression: Re =
HD D V

HD x D x V

= 0.125 ft Step #2 D = 62.254 lbs/cu ft @ 68F

Where HD = Hydraulic Diameter in feet Note: When the fluid flow passageway has a cross section area other than a circle, the hydraulic diameter is then determined according to the relationship following: HD D V =
4 x cross section area wetted perimeter

In order to determine the fluid flow velocity through the separator, the flow capacity must be determined. A single plate contains 8 ft x 4 ft or 32 sq ft of area. At the stated 55 angle of inclination, each plate has a projected plate separation area of 32 x the cosine of 55 or 18.35 sq ft At the stated hydraulic loading of 0.5 gpm/sq ft, the capacity is found by multiplying the projected plate separation area by the hydraulic loading. This calculates out to 9.175 gpm. Since the plates are spaced at inch, the flow passageway cross section area may be determined by multiplying the plate length by the spacing or 8 ft x inch. Dividing this product by 12/ft yields 0.5 sq ft. Dividing the fluid flow capacity by the cross section area determines the linear fluid flow velocity, or: Step #3 V =
9.175 GPM 60 sec / min x 7.481 gal / cu ft x 0.5 sq ft

= Density of fluid in lbs/cu ft = Fluid flow velocity in ft/sec = Absolute viscosity in lbs/ft sec

In examining this equation, two things are readily seen. First, if one arbitrarily doubles the spacing between the plates, the Re Number is also doubled. Secondly, if one doubles the flow velocity between the plates, the Re Number is again doubled. Conversely, halving either the plate spacing or the flow velocity also halves the Re Number. This says that the optimum separator

= 0.0409 ft/sec Step #4

= 0.00067533 lbs./ft-sec

The Re number may now be calculated as follows:

Re

0.125 x 62.254 x 0.0409 0.00067533

Separator Designs
The horizontal plate separator as shown in Figure 2 was introduced in 1904. Initially, the horizontal plate separator would work very well. By adding intermediate plates, particles had less distance to traverse before becoming removed (separated) from the flow stream. And since the number of plates used now increased the surface area, more flow could be treated without a decrease in performance, even without an increase in equipment size! In addition, laminar flow hydraulic conditions (Reynolds Number of less than 500) were easy to achieve because of the now much smaller hydraulic diameter provided by the relatively short distance between the plates. Under laminar flow conditions, particles behave according to Stoke's Law, previously discussed.

= 471 (laminar flow conditions) Note: Tables of water viscosities and densities are provided on pages 15 through 18. For the second separator, use an upflow (flow goes from bottom of separator to top) type with inch plate spacing at a hydraulic loading of 0.5 gpm/sq ft with water @ 68F. Again, the surface-loading rate is 720 GPD per square foot and the plates are 4 foot by 8 foot inclined at 55 from the horizontal. The single difference between the second separator and the first is the direction of flow through the unit. Step #1 HD =
4 x 4 ft x (3/4" 12" /ft) 4 ft + 4 ft

= 0.125 ft Step #2 D = 62.254 lbs/cu ft @ 68F

The flow capacity again calculates out to 9.175 GPM but the cross section area of the flow passageway now becomes 0.25 sq ft Step #3 V =
9.175 gpm 60 sec / min x 7.481 gal / cu ft x 0.25 sq ft

= 0.0818 ft/sec Step # 4

Figure 2

= 0.00067533 lbs/ft-sec

The Re Number may now be calculated as follows: Re =

0.125 x 62.254 x 0.0818 0.00067533

= 943 (non-laminar flow conditions) The efficiency of the cross flow type separator may be calculated according to Stokes Law because particle separation occurs under laminar flow conditions. In the second example, since hindered settling conditions exist (Re Number greater than 500), the significantly lesser efficiency must be determined experimentally. The surface-loading rate of the second separator would have to be reduced by a factor of two to equal the Re Number of the cross flow type separator. A number of oil/water separator manufacturers insist that any Re Number of less than 2000, rather than 500, reflects laminar flow conditions. These manufacturers have yet to learn the fundamental difference between closed conduit and open channel hydraulics.

As separated particles began to build up and collect on the floors and ceilings of each plate, evidencing removal of both rising and settling particles, the flow path of the liquid would become partially restricted. As a result, laminar flow conditions gradually disappear because of induced turbulence, and once separated particles would then become reentrained in the flow stream. The horizontal plate separator would then have to be cleaned of separated particles in order to restore it to its prior efficiency. In order to overcome the routine cleaning that was necessitated by the horizontal plate configuration, the technology was significantly improved when plates were inclined at an angle greater than the angle of repose of the separated particles creating the inclined plate separator. This plate inclination improvement shown in Figure 3 permitted both rising and settling particles to be removed from a flow stream simultaneously and continuously without periodic cleaning. A separator with inclined plates exhibits self-flushing or self-cleaning characteristics if:

1. The plates are non-oleophilic (oleophilic is the property of attracting and holding oily particles) 2. The angle of plate inclination exceeds the angle of repose of the separated particles, and 3. The smoothness of the plates is sufficient to permit the separated particles, to slide down (or up) and out of the flow stream.

tube settlers must be cleaned in order to restore them to useful particle separation service.

Design Differences
In order to appreciate fully the differences between various separator designs, an understanding of the interrelationships between the following design considerations must be developed: 1. Reynolds Number 2. Internal separator hydraulics and separated particles flow paths, and 3. Particle coalescence

Effect of Plate Spacing

Plate spacing is the shortest distance between adjacent surfaces. When considered alone, plate spacing does not increase or decrease the Re Number when hydraulic loading rates are constant. As plate spacing is increased, hydraulic diameter is increased by an amount equal to the corresponding decrease in fluid flow velocity. Since both of these terms vary in direct proportion to the Re Number, they cancel each other out. The reverse is also true. If plate spacing is decreased, hydraulic diameter is also decreased but in the same proportion as the fluid flow velocity is increased. Consequently, plate spacing has no practical impact on the Re Number so long as the hydraulic loading, or surface overflow rate, remains a constant. Plate spacing, however, does have a significant impact on the surface overflow rating of a separator. The wider the plate spacing, the further the distance a particle must traverse in order to separate from the fluid stream. As an example, a particle in a separator with 2 inch plate spacing must traverse 2.66 times more distance than the identical particle in a separator with inch plate spacing. In order for each of these separators to remove the same particle, the separator with 2 inch plate spacing would have to be rated at a surface overflow rate of only 37.6% that of the inch plate spaced separator. This is calculated as follows. The vertical distance a particle must traverse is given by the plate spacing divided by the sine of (90 minus the angle of inclination). In the case of a 55 inclination angle and two separators with inch and 2 inch plate spacing, the two settling distances are: sin (90 - 55) 2 sin (90 - 55) 3.49 1.31 100% 2.66 In summary: Wider plate spacing can result in hindered settling conditions because of Re Numbers exceeding 500, = 1.31 = 3.49 = 2.66 = 37.6%

Figure 3

Adding parallel plates and then by installing them at an angle of inclination have significantly improved clarifier technology. Several separator manufacturers have used the above described separation principles to arrive at various designs. One supplier attaches a vibrator to the parallel plate assembly to encourage the separated particles to slide out of the flow stream rather than cling to the flat plates. Another directs the fluid flow from the top of the separator to the bottom in order to achieve maximum separation of the oil and scum particles. Yet others direct the flow from the bottom of the separator to the top in order to achieve maximum separation of those particles that exhibit positive settling rates (sediment removal). And some suppliers still use almost horizontal plates, like Hazen in 1904, that require periodic backflushing to clean the separator of deposited particles. Not to be outdone, other suppliers direct the inlet flow through the sides of the inclined plate separator where the liquid flow must turn 90 degrees to exit from the top of the device. Tube settlers, whether circles, hexagons, diamonds, square, or chevrons in cross-section, are further versions of the classical plate separator. The chief and continuing criticism of the tube settlers is their susceptibility to entrain small particles. As these small particles are separated from the flow stream they slide out of the tube settler and directly into the incoming flow, thereby becoming reentrained. As this reentrainment phenomenon increases the concentration of these particles eventually closes off the flow. The now plugged

and always reduces the particle removal efficiency of separation, degrading effluent treatment quality. Narrower plate spacing, however, favors laminar flow and quiescent settling conditions in accordance with Stokes Law, and always increases the particle removal efficiency of separation thus optimizing the effluent treatment quality.

Fr Number =

Inertia force per unit area Gravity force per unit area

Materials of Construction
Separator Plates The separator plate material of construction is extremely critical as it strongly impacts on performance. It is of paramount importance that the plates are smooth on both sides to enhance continuing migration of separated particles and non-oleophilic to maintain nonsticky plate surface Keeping the separator module free from separated particles, particularly sludge particles, decreases or eliminates the necessity to clean the plate surfaces. Smooth non-oleophilic plates represent a preferred material such as fiberglass. By comparison, PVC plates are far from smooth and polypropylene plates are oleophilic. Oleophilic plates adsorb oil on its surfaces thereby preventing the migration of sludge particles. The final result is a plugged module. Vessel Fiberglass, epoxy painted steel, aluminum, stainless steel, and concrete are all acceptable materials of constructions for the separator vessel. The principal consideration respecting materials relates to the intended service, i.e., depth of bury in the case of an underground installation, resistance to corrosionboth interior and exterior surfaces, compatibility of surfaces in contact with the carrier fluid and any contaminants to be separated, and installation requirements. Should a proposed stormwater separator be located in a high groundwater location, a factory packaged metal or fiberglass separator would install far easier than a pourin-place concrete vessel. If the separator application is small enough, a precast concrete vessel may well be appropriate because of the ability to install quickly. Concrete separators also provide significant ballast because of their inherent weight many times eliminating the need for a ballast pad. The preferred vessel material of construction, therefore, is not dependent upon the particle separation application under consideration.

Basically, the Fr Number is the ratio of the velocity of flow to the celerity of a small wave in quiet fluid. Consequently, if the Fr Number is less than 1.0, a wave is swept downstream. The Fr Number is of importance only when there exists a sloping interface of two fluids of different density. It is significant in the study and behavior of flow in open channels. In the design and performance of separators, however, the Fr Number possesses no significance whatsoever. Some separator manufacturers incorrectly reference the Fr Number in their sales literature.

Internal Hydraulics
The internal hydraulics of a separator have a direct impact on the Re Number and consequently on particle separation conditions. At a specific hydraulic loading rate, the shortest flow path through the separator module will always result in the smallest flow velocity and therefore the lowest possible Re Number. To achieve a short flow path requires a large entry plane into the separator along with appropriate hydraulic flow distribution and subsequent treated water collection. The consequences of inadequate hydraulic distribution and collection are under-utilization of plate surface area. Likewise, separator designs with small entry planes possess inherently higher Re Numbers and thus must be rated at reduced hydraulic loadings. If the path of the particle to be separated is opposite to, or countercurrent with, the path of the liquid flow, some of the particles with lesser settling/rise rates will be swept back into the liquid flow. This phenomenon is referred to as particle reentrainment. Particle reentrainment also occurs whenever a migrating particle passes through the flow stream en route to its ultimate destination. Particle reentrainment always degrades the quality of the treated water effluent as well as the efficiency of separator performance. Particle reentrainment may be effectively eliminated by: 1. Directing the paths of the separated particles and the liquid flow stream so that their respective paths are 90 from each other. This arrangement can only be achieved in a cross flow type separator. 2. Causing the smaller particles (those discrete particles possessing lesser settling/rise rates) to coalesce together thereby agglomerating and forming larger particles. Particle settling/rise rates are proportional to the square of their diameters according to Stokes Law previously discussed. Particle coalescence therefore enhances separator performance while minimizing particle reentrainment. Maximum coalescence is achieved when using corrugated plates.

Froude Number
The Re Number is vital to separator design and performance. It is defined as:

Re Number =

Inertia force per unit area Viscous force per unit area

The Froude Number (Fr) is another number sometimes referenced in the literature of separator suppliers. It is defined as:

Some oil/water separator manufacturers deploy two or more separator modules in series flow as shown in Figure 4. In order to properly claim the projected area of an inclined plate separator, the hydraulic continuum within the module must be continuous. Whenever a second or third module is used, the hydraulic continuum is interrupted thus restarting the particle separation process upon each module entry. In theory, additional modules in series flow impart very little additional particle removal benefit.

lescence. As these coalesced particles continue migrating, they also agglomerate due to collisions between particles exhibiting different migration rates. However, in a corrugated plate separator, particle agglomeration is achieved in two directions, namely, the direction of particle separation as well as the direction of separated particle migration. Thus, maximum particle coalescence and agglomeration can only be achieved in a corrugated plate separator. One can therefore expect higher levels of separator performance from a corrugated plate separator. Figure 5 illustrates particle coalescence.
TOP OF VESSEL

FLOW

FLOW

BOTTOM OF VESSEL

Figure 5

PuriSep Separators
By combining the preferred design principles in a single separator, maximum particle removal efficiency and thus ideal process performance is achieved. The most modern, state-of-the-art, and optimum separator has been realized with the PuriSep corrugated plate separator manufactured by WaterSmart Environmental. See Figure 6. The cross flow design permits simultaneous separation and self-flushing of both rising and settling particles without favoring one type of particle over the other. This dual-phase particle removal capability often permits single stage process treatment rather than multiple stage treatment. Dual phase particle removal is especially important when raw water characteristics change or vary through ranges of concentrations. The PuriSep has a wide entry plane and correspondingly short flow path thus minimizing the Re Number. Three distinct flow pressure drops assure maximum flow distribution and consequently complete plate utilization. Additionally, since the directions of liquid and separated particle flow are always 90 to each other, particle reentrainment is virtually eliminated. And by providing an especially smooth finish on each side of the corrugated plates, particle coalescence is enhanced. No other separator design utilizes as many preferred performance features as the PuriSep cross flow inclined corrugated plate separator.

Figure 4

Particle Coalescence
Particle coalescence is important to enhance because a particles rate of separation, either rising or settling, is directly proportional to the square of its diameter. By inducing smaller particles to join together to form larger particles (called coalescence), the efficiency of particle separation is increased accordingly. As separated particles migrate along a flat plate, some particle agglomeration takes place due to the collision between particles exhibiting different migration rates. This agglomeration takes place in the direction of particle migration. As separated particles migrate along a corrugated plate, they slide to the trough of the corrugations. This phenomenon is another example of coa-

The major advantages of the PuriSep separator are: 1. Minimum equipment space--less than any other separator available. 2. Low Re Numbers, therefore quiescent settling conditions and maximum particle removals. 3. Smooth corrugated plates for enhanced particle coalescence that induce maximum particle agglomeration and self-flushing characteristics.

4. Cross flow hydraulic path that minimized both the Re Number and separated particle reentrainment. 5. Dual phase particle separation, simultaneously, without favoring one type of particle over the other.

Figure 6

Application Engineering Considerations Projected Plate Separation Area

To determine hydraulic loading rates of a separator, the flow and surface area are used in the same manner in which they are used to size, or rate, traditional clarifiers. The projected separation area of an inclined plate separator is determined by adding up the horizontally projected areas of the several plates as is illustrated in Figure 7. The projected separation area of a separator inclined at 60 to the horizontal, for example, would be exactly 50% of the total inclined area since the cosine of 60 is 0.500. Since separators are not perfect separation devices, separator manufacturers multiply the total projected separation area by an efficiency factor which, when multiplied by the total projected separation area, produces the true separation area, or effective separation area of that particular unit. The efficiency factor will normally range from 0.95 in highly efficient separators to about 0.35 in highly inefficient

separators. The efficiency factor takes into account separator internal hydraulics, plate utilization, flow dampening, and separator module inlet and outlet flow disturbances.

Figure 7

Particle Removal By Simple Gravity

The most fundamental type of gravity separation is the case where the flow stream contains particles that adequately settle out. Flow streams that contain particles with insufficient separation velocities to permit gravity settling will be considered later on. The particles contained in this fundamental type of flow stream are frequently mixed. Some of the particles will exhibit rise rates and thus will eventually rise to the surface of the liquid. The balance of the particles may exhibit settling rates and thus will eventually settle to the bottom of the separator. In order to consider any clarifier or separator for simple gravity separation, sufficient separation velocity, expressed as either a rise rate or a settling rate (or both), must exist so that these particles separate out in a reasonable length of time. The size of a particle and the difference in specific gravity or density between the particle and the carrier fluid together determine the rate of separation characterized by that particle. Stokes Law gives the relationship between a particle and its separation velocity. Simple gravity separation may be accomplished with the separator shown in Figure 8.

Particle Removal by Induced Gravity

If the particles to be removed do not possess sufficient rise or settling rates to permit their removal by simple gravity separation, additional treatment is required. A particle can possess an inadequate separation velocity for two reasons: 1. Particle size is small, usually less than 5 microns. Chemical emulsions are typical particles in this size range. Particle density, or specific gravity, of these small particles does not influence their separation rates, and/or 2. Particle density, or specific gravity, of the particle is too close to that of the carrier fluid. The particle therefore neither rises nor settles at a sufficient velocity to permit gravity separation. The particle is said to possess neutral gravity. The particle size of the neutral gravity particles has little influence on their separation rates. Since the force of gravity is a constant, the only way to separate neutral gravity particles from their carrier fluid is to induce an added density differential to the particle. By inducing this differential, separation rates are increased thereby permitting gravity separation. In the case presented by small particles, the inducement of added density differential is provided by increasing the size of the particle. As Stokes Law shows, the separation velocity of a particle is directly proportional to the square of its diameter. By increasing the size of a particle, one also increases, sometimes dramatically, its rate of separation. In order to accomplish particle growth, it is necessary to add one or more chemicals to the flow stream followed by flocculation of the particles. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 9.

Figure 8--Oil/Water/Solids Separator

Since all PuriSep separators simultaneously remove both rising and settling particles, the above separator may be used either as a Solids Separator or as an Oil/Water Separator. Even though the principal application may change, the equipment design remains essentially the same. If the raw water contains both rising and settling particles, the above separator becomes ideal because of its ability to remove both types of particles without favoring one type over the other. Additionally, if the process application ever changes from one kind of requirement to another, the same unit accomplishes both kinds of treatment. Traditional separators are usually designed to remove either rising or settling particles, but not both.

Figure 9

This type of application is effectively accomplished with the combination flocculator/separator shown in Figure 10. The resulting agglomerated large particle shown above may exhibit either a rise or a settling rate. The direction of separation is not significant. Its rate of separation rather is the parameter that permits gravity separation.

In referring back to case #2 where the particle density is too close to that of the carrier fluid, and thus exhibits neutral gravity, the removal technique is to add the DAF distributor once again. The now attached air permits rapid and efficient removal of these particles. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 13.

Figure 10--Combination Flocculator/Separator

If the now agglomerated particle still exhibits a yet insufficient separation rate, as is entirely possible, further process treatment will be required in the form of Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF). In this induced density differential refinement, air saturated recycle water under elevated pressure is distributed in front of the separator. Excess air boils out of the recycle water on release of system pressure. These micron-sized air bubbles, or particles, then become attached or occluded within the agglomerated floc structure causing these neutral gravity particles to rise quickly to the liquid surface. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 11.

Figure 12--Combination Flocculator/DAF Separator

This type of application is effectively accomplished with the DAF separator shown in Figure 14. Note that this separator is identical to the separator shown in Figure 8 except for the addition of the DAF distributor.

Figure 13

Figure 11

This type of application is effectively accomplished with the combination flocculator/DAF separator shown in Figure 12. Note that this separator is identical to the separator shown in Figure 10 except for the addition of the DAF distributor. In order to remove small particles effectively, the first step is always chemical feed and flocculation. The resulting agglomerated particle may then exhibit a sufficient separation rate. If it does not, then DAF may be added to assist particle removal.

In the examples cited, particles with adequate separation velocities, as well as small and otherwise neutral gravity particles, have all been removed from their carrier fluid. Those separation techniques may not work when several kinds of particles are simultaneously present, in significant quantities, in the same flow stream with total particle removal required. As an example, a flow stream may contain 1. Particles with a sufficient rise rate to permit gravity separation and large neutral gravity particles with an insufficient separation rate, or 2. Particles with a sufficient settling rate to permit gravity separation and large neutral gravity particles with an insufficient separation rate, or

3. Both rising and settling particles along with neutral gravity particles.

Figure 12 except that the first stage flocculator has been replaced by a first stage gravity separator. One last example illustrates the necessity for sequential removal of specific kinds of particles in order to achieve effective treatment. In the case of a flow stream containing significant quantities of free oil (exhibiting an adequate separation velocity) along with significant quantities of chemically emulsified oil (exhibiting inadequate separation velocity), a threestage separation system is required. The first stage of treatment would consist of a simple gravity separator to remove those particles with a sufficient separation velocity, namely, the free oil constituent of the contaminant. The remaining emulsified oil must first be chemically treated to break the emulsion followed by flocculation to permit particle agglomeration or particle growth. The second stage treatment would then consist of flocculation with chemical pre-treatment. Since the agglomerated particles would still exhibit neutral gravity because of their close proximity in density to their carrier fluid, the use of DAF would be required. The third stage of treatment then consists of a DAF separator. The separation of particles from a liquid stream is not difficult so long as the above design principles are followed. Determining raw water characteristics accurately is an obvious first step. Deciding upon level(s) of treatment is the second step. Thereafter, the design of an appropriate treatment system is relatively easy. Comprehensive laboratory testing may well be necessary. Occasionally, job site pilot plant testing may be advisable before full-scale equipment designs are considered. So long as the entire range of ancillary equipment and options are available to the treatment plant designer, the effective separation of virtually any particle, or any combination of particles, is achievable without resorting to complex treatment schemes. And since the PuriSep separation system utilizes any combination of flocculation, chemical feed, gravity separation, and DAF, its application may be relied upon as the exclusive treatment equipment system with single source responsibility provided by WaterSmart Environmental, Inc.

Figure 14--DAF Separator

As has been shown, in order to remove the neutral gravity particles, DAF must be employed. However, in the presence of these other particles, DAF treatment would prove ineffective. In the case of the settling particles, the DAF induced gravity differential would change these into neutral gravity particles, and furthermore, these particles would dilute the concentration of air particles available to lift the neutral gravity particles to the surface. In the case of the rising particles, the dilution of air particles would occur causing insufficient air to permit removal of the neutral gravity particles.

Figure 15--Combination Gravity Separator/ DAF Separator

Flocculation
Flocculators are used to enhance particle growth or particle agglomeration and floc formation after chemical addition. Flocculation always occur in two successive steps or stages: 1. Perikinetic Flocculation is particle growth or aggregation resulting from random thermal motion of fluid molecules. This random motion is known as the Brownian Movement. Coagulation and perikinetic flocculation take place on a micro scale in less than one (1) second.

To achieve effective particle removal, it is obvious that both rising and settling particles, to the extent present, must be substantially removed prior to the use of DAF. Indeed, the greatest single reason that DAF systems do not perform properly is the failure to recognize this requirement. A two stage separation system consisting of a first stage gravity separator followed by a DAF separator is necessary. This type of application is effectively accomplished with the combination gravity separator/DAF separator shown in Figure 15. Note that this separator is identical to the separator shown in

2. Orthokinetic Flocculation is particle growth or aggregation resulting from induced velocity gradients in the fluid. Orthokinetic flocculation occurs slowly in flocculators, usually requiring several seconds or minutes for complete floc formation. This type of flocculation is the predominant mechanism in potable, process, and wastewater treatment. Chemical feed dosage is generally determined by a laboratory procedure called Jar Tests. This method uses a series of beakers fitted with adjustable, slow RPM stirrers. Various dosages of chemicals, polymers, and other flocculents are added while stirring in order to achieve optimum floc producing conditions. The normal stirring time in this procedure is five (5) minutes. Traditional flocculators employ paddle mixers and baffles in continuously stirred tank reactors. In these types of flocculators, short-circuiting and back mixing always occur, simultaneously. The combination of variations in residence time coupled with widely varying velocity gradients (G values) is responsible for an entire range of resulting floc structures, sizes and corresponding settling (or rising) properties. As a consequence, flocculation is inefficient, requiring detention periods of from fifteen (15) to twenty five (25) minutes, or three to five times greater than the flocculation which was accomplished in the Jar Tests! WaterSmart Environmental uses a modern corrugated plate hydraulic type flocculator, called CorruFloc, to achieve the same or better results as those determined in the Jar Tests. In the flocculator, chemically dosed water is directed through a series of compartments formed by adjacent corrugated plates that are assembled in a flocculator module. The velocity gradients within the flocculator may be adjusted by shifting every second corrugated plate.

water alternately speeds up and then slows down resulting in gentle, but positive, particle agglomeration or floc growth. In a CorruFloc hydraulic flocculator, some particle separation takes place because floc formation is rapid. Particles that do separate either rise into a scum collection compartment where they are mechanically skimmed from the surface, and/or settle to the sludge collection compartment for subsequent transfer. If the flocculation characteristics of the incoming water ever change, new phase shifts can be established between the corrugated plates that will once again result in optimum flocculation conditions. No other conventional flocculator can be adjusted over as wide a range of operating conditions as the CorruFloc flocculator. Velocity gradient changes of twenty to one (20:1) are feasible. This capability permits a wide accommodation of influent water characteristics. Process advantages are: 1. No moving parts thereby minimizing maintenance. 2. Short-circuiting and back mixing are eliminated. 3. Highly controlled velocity gradients assure uniform and optimum floc formation. 4. Generous flocculation time resulting in maximum particle growth on a consistent basis. 5. No mechanically induced shear forces to break up floc growth (chief criticism of mechanical flocculators). 6. Maximum possible performance and reliability.

Dissolved Air Flotation

Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) is the process that utilizes small gas bubbles, in the size range from 3 micron to about 20 micron, to separate 5-10 micron neutral gravity particles from a carrier fluid. By neutral gravity is meant those particles that exhibit separation velocities (either rising or settling) of less than 1 inch per minute. The presence of other particles with separation rates greater than 1 inch per minute will tend to retard the efficiency of separation of neutral gravity particles in proportion to their concentration. Should these other particles be present in a concentration higher than 2,000 to 5,000 mg/L, depending on separation velocities, they must be removed in a gravity type separator prior to the DAF separation system in order to achieve the removal efficiencies inherent to the DAF process. Practitioners who have failed to take the above limitations into account have frequently misapplied the Dissolved Air Flotation process. A clear understanding of the DAF process is necessary before it can be applied to a specific treatment application. Induced Air Flotation is another air assist process in which air or gas is occluded within or injected into a liquid flow and thereafter permitted to contact neutral

Figure 16

Figure 17

In Figure 16, a minimum velocity gradient is generated entirely by the drag (friction due to liquid viscosity) between the plates. In Figure 17, a maximum G value has been established by a complete phase shift between the plates. In passing between the plates, the

gravity particles. Induced Air Flotation (IAF) bubbles are many times larger in size (roughly 100 times) than DAF bubbles. As a practical matter, for every one IAF bubble there are one million DAF bubbles. Therefore, the opportunity to make contact, based on random probability, with neutral gravity particles is proportionally much greater with the DAF process. Particle removal efficiencies are consequently far better with the DAF process. In the DAF process, air (or other gasses) is mixed with water at elevated pressures as it is forced into solution. Excess air is bled off to prevent reentrainment into the DAF distribution piping. In order to illustrate the amount of air that can be dissolved in water under elevated pressures, Henrys Law states that, for gasses of low solubility, the volume dissolved in water varies with absolute pressure. For example, at sea level and at a temperature of 20 C (68 F), water will dissolve approximately 2% of air by volume, but at 15 psig, the solubility is 4%, at 30 psig--6%, at 45 psig-8%, and at 60 psig--10%. Upon a reduction in pressure, the water becomes supersaturated with air causing the supersaturated portion to precipitate (boil) out in the form of micron sized bubbles. The amount of air that precipitates out is dependent upon the amount of saturation. The rate of air precipitation is dependent upon two factors. First is the degree of supersaturation, that is, the greater the degree the faster the rate. Second is the degree of turbulence after pressure release that the supersaturated water undergoes, that is, that the greater the turbulence the faster the rate. These two factors are important considerations in the design of a DAF system because the ability of the process to remove neutral gravity particles is directly related to the release of air bubbles. The greater the concentration of neutral gravity particles to be removed, the greater the need for dissolved air bubbles to assist particle separation. Furthermore, the more efficient the air release phenomenon, the smaller, and less expensive, the DAF generation and distribution system.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Pressure pump & motor Air addition system Pressure detention/reaction tanks Pressure release valve Interconnecting piping

In another method only part of the flow stream to be treated is mixed with air under pressure. The air saturated side stream (split stream) is then passed through a pressure release valve and discharges into the reaction/separation vessel. This method requires the use of a somewhat smaller DAF make-up system than the system first described in above. A third technique uses pressurized treated water but recycles it into the raw water feed line where the entire flow must pass through a pressure release valve before discharge into the reaction/separation vessel. The fourth method uses treated water for its DAF make-up system (called a recycle flow system), and thereafter discharges the air saturated water through a pressure release valve and into the reaction/separation vessel. This is the method used by WaterSmart Environmental, Inc. In any DAF system, only the supersaturated portion of the dissolved air can be released. If the incoming raw water has little or no dissolved air, as is often the case, sufficient air must be dissolved to saturate this entire flow stream at gravity or ambient pressure conditions. The amount of air required to accomplish this initial degree of air saturation remains in solution and is consequently unavailable to accomplish air flotation. It therefore becomes desirable to minimize the amount of wasted dissolved air in any DAF system. Figure 18 on page 13 shows flow schematics of typical DAF separation systems. DAF systems may be further improved by using treated water in a recycle mode of operation. Rather than having little or no dissolved air, as is the case with raw water pressurization systems, the recycle water already contains some dissolved air in rough proportion to the recycle rate. This preexisting dissolved air further reduces DAF capital and operating expenses. As will be further discussed under the Flotation Separators Application Data Section, the ability of a DAF system to remove particles is directly related to the gross amount of air released in the form of micron sized bubbles. The amount of air released is dependent upon the recycle rate and system pressure (plus other factors considered shortly). By determining the air release requirement, and in considering the raw water dissolved air, liquid temperature, flow variations, and similar matters, one may design a more costeffective DAF system for a particular treatment requirement.

DAF Air Dissolution

There are four methods used to dissolve air in the application of the DAF process. In one process the entire flow stream to be treated is first mixed with air under elevated pressure. System pressure is thereafter reduced to gravity pressure, which, in turn, permits the supersaturated portion of the air to boil out of solution in a reaction or separation vessel. Since the entire flow stream is pressurized, the pressurization system must be sized to accommodate the complete full flow stream. The system components include:

Figure 18

DAF Air Release

Supersaturated air begins coming out of solution within a few seconds after pressure release takes place. The supersaturated portion can continue coming out of solution for several minutes after pressure release has taken place. By this time, significant quantities of treated water, including the intermixed DAF water, will have been discharged from the reaction/detention vessel. To the extent that the discharged water contains still supersaturated air, the DAF system is

inefficient. It therefore becomes desirable to provide conditions that will accelerate the air release process so that it occurs within the reaction/detention vessel, and prior to its discharge. One way to speed up the rate of air release is to design and operate the DAF water at higher rather than lower pressures. As stated prior, the rate of release is proportional to the difference between system pressure and released pressure. Additionally, the amount of air required to saturate the DAF water

(and thus wasted) in proportion to the supersaturated amount is less as the system pressure is increased. Higher system pressures, however, are more expensive to install and operate than lower system pressures. In balancing these competing cost considerations, it has been determined that a DAF system pressure between 50 and 75 psig is the most economical range for this type of treatment. Another method of speeding up the air release rate is to provide high degrees of turbulence in the DAF water distribution system downstream from the pressure release valve. The first method to increase turbulence, and thereby the rate of air bubble discharge, is to maximize turbulence in the air release valve itself. Most DAF suppliers use a diaphragm type valve to accomplish air release. These valves work very well as pressure regulating control devices. The valve manufacturers intentionally hold the amount of turbulence created in these valves to a minimum. The interior of these valves operate in such a manner so as to create a converging section, a throat or flow control section, and lastly, a diverging section. In many respects, the valves simulate the hydraulics in a venturi meter. Flow indeed is controlled, as is its corresponding pressure. However, the amount and degree of turbulence is and has been minimized by its geometric design. In other words, diaphragm type pressure release or pressure relief valves do not impart a high degree of turbulence to their controlled flow. However, in the PuriSep DAF generation modules, a specially manufactured valve series is utilized which maximized hydraulic turbulence, and thus air bubble release, while also providing flow control and pressure release. Most DAF suppliers discharge DAF water into the reaction/detention vessel directly from the exit of the pressure release valve. The DAF water then passes through but a single turbulence creating condition. In a PuriSep DAF separator, the DAF water is passed through a second turbulence creating condition consisting of a DAF distribution header containing flow distribution orifices. A modest, but important, amount of pressure drop is designed into the DAF distribution header in order to create a secondary turbulent condition. In discharging the DAF water through two (2) tur-

bulence zones, air release (precipitation) efficiencies are maximized. Additionally, the DAF distribution systems in the PuriSep DAF separators are located near the vessel bottom thereby assuring maximum vertical use of the DAF gas bubbles as they slowly rise to the surface of the separator vessel. That the DAF process has frequently been misapplied cannot be argued. That the DAF air dissolution and air release systems in general use today have been poorly designed cannot be denied. That the DAF process remains a preferred treatment system, in spite of its somewhat high installation and operating costs is generous testimony to its process performance. By examining the various considerations discussed in this section, one may enhance the application and use of the DAF process. And by selecting a PuriSep DAF separator, process efficiencies and cost-effectiveness are both assured.

Summary
WaterSmart Environmental, Inc. manufactures and services advanced water purification equipment for municipal, governmental, and industrial markets on a global basis. The PuriSep separation systems represent but a single product line. The engineering policy of the company is to consistently strive to: Minimize 6 Energy input. 6 Equipment size and weight. 6 Mechanical components. 6 Treatment and transfer complexities. While Emphasizing 6 Conservative process and mechanical designs. 6 Corrosion protection. 6 Fail-safe features. 6 OSHA compliance. In Order to Achieve 6 Minimum operation and maintenance costs. 6 Optimum mechanical and electrical reliability. 6 Performance requirements with room to spare. 6 Cost-effective solutions on a systems basis.

Table I Water Viscosities & Densities

Temperature C
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

F
32.0 33.8 35.6 37.4 39.2 41.0 42.8 44.6 46.4 48.2 50.0 51.8 53.6 55.4 57.2 59.0 60.8 62.6 64.4 66.2 68.0 69.8 71.6 73.4 75.2 77.0 78.8 80.6 82.4 84.2 86.0 87.8 89.6 91.4 93.2 95.0 96.8 98.6

Absolute Viscosity of Pure Water poises lbs/ft-sec

0.017870 0.017280 0.016710 0.016180 0.015670 0.015190 0.014720 0.014280 0.013860 0.013460 0.013070 0.012710 0.012350 0.012020 0.011690 0.011390 0.011090 0.010810 0.010530 0.010270 0.010020 0.009779 0.009548 0.009325 0.009111 0.008904 0.008705 0.008513 0.008327 0.008148 0.007975 0.007808 0.007647 0.007491 0.007340 0.007194 0.007052 0.006915 0.00120424 0.00116338 0.00112407 0.00108799 0.00105324 0.00102059 0.00098968 0.00095984 0.00093135 0.00090460 0.00087873 0.00085427 0.00084870 0.00080824 0.00078681 0.00076631 0.00074662 0.00072761 0.00070953 0.00069206 0.00067533 0.00065920 0.00064368 0.00062883 0.00061431 0.00060054 0.00058710 0.00057420 0.00056177 0.00054967 0.00053805 0.00052682 0.00051600 0.00050552 0.00049531 0.00048550 0.00047609 0.00046682

Density of Pure Water in Air gm/cc lbs/cu ft

0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.994 0.994 0.994 62.351 62.355 62.358 62.360 62.360 62.360 62.359 62.357 62.354 62.350 62.345 62.339 62.333 62.326 62.317 62.309 62.299 62.289 62.278 62.266 62.254 62.241 62.228 62.213 62.198 62.183 62.167 62.150 62.133 62.115 62.097 62.078 62.058 62.038 62.018 61.996 61.974 61.952

Temperature C
38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

F
100.4 102.2 104.0 105.8 107.6 109.4 111.2 113.0 114.8 116.6 118.4 120.2 122.0 123.8 125.6 127.4 129.2 131.0 132.8 134.6 136.4 138.2 140.0 141.8 143.6 145.4 147.2 149.0 150.8 152.6 154.4 156.2 158.0 159.8 161.6 163.4 165.2 167.0

Absolute Viscosity of Pure Water poises lbs/ft-sec

0.006783 0.006654 0.006529 0.006408 0.006291 0.006178 0.006067 0.005960 0.005856 0.005755 0.005656 0.005561 0.005468 0.005378 0.005290 0.005204 0.005121 0.005040 0.004961 0.004884 0.004809 0.004736 0.004665 0.004596 0.004528 0.004462 0.004398 0.004335 0.004273 0.004213 0.004155 0.004098 0.004042 0.003987 0.003934 0.003882 0.003831 0.003781 0.00045788 0.00044921 0.00044081 0.00043268 0.00042475 0.00041709 0.00040970 0.00040238 0.00039532 0.00038853 0.00038188 0.00037550 0.00037138 0.00036726 0.00036313 0.00035715 0.00035137 0.00034580 0.00033908 0.00033498 0.00032470 0.00031979 0.00031502 0.00031042 0.00030575 0.00030124 0.00029688 0.00029264 0.00028848 0.00028444 0.00028048 0.00027665 0.00027289 0.00026919 0.00026556 0.00026207 0.00025864 0.00025528

Density of Pure Water in Air gm/cc lbs/cu ft

0.993 0.993 0.992 0.992 0.992 0.991 0.991 0.990 0.990 0.989 0.989 0.988 0.988 0.988 0.987 0.987 0.986 0.986 0.985 0.985 0.984 0.984 0.983 0.993 0.982 0.982 0.981 0.981 0.980 0.980 0.979 0.979 0.978 0.977 0.976 0.976 0.975 0.975 61.929 61.907 61.885 61.859 61.833 61.807 61.781 61.756 61.729 61.701 61.674 61.647 61.620 61.591 61.562 61.533 61.504 61.474 61.443 61.412 61.381 61.350 61.319 61.286 61.252 61.220 61.186 61.153 61.119 61.084 61.050 61.015 60.981 60.944 60.908 60.871 60.835 60.798

15

Table II API and Baum Gravity Tables and Weight Factors

A.P.I Gravity
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Baum Gravity
10.247 9.223 8.198 7.173 6.148 5.124 4.099 3.074 2.049 1.025 10.00 10.99 11.98 12.97 13.96 14.95 15.94 16.93 17.92 18.90 19.89 20.88 21.87 22.86 23.85 24.84 25.83 26.82 27.81 28.80 29.79 30.78 31.77 32.76 33.75 34.73 35.72 36.71 37.70 38.69 39.68 40.67 41.66 42.65 43.64 44.63 45.62 50.61 50.60 50.59 50.58

Specific Gravity
1.0760 1.0679 1.0599 1.0520 1.0443 1.0366 1.0291 1.0217 1.0143 1.0071 1.0000 0.9930 0.9861 0.9792 0.9725 9.9659 0.9593 0.9529 0.9465 0.9402 0.9340 0.9279 0.9218 0.9159 0.9100 0.9042 0.8984 0.8927 0.8871 0.8816 0.8762 0.8708 0.8654 0.8602 0.8550 0.8498 0.8448 0.8398 0.8348 0.8299 0.8251 0.8203 0.8155 0.8109 0.8063 0.8017 0.7972 0.7927 0.7883 0.7839 0.7796

Lbs Per US Gal

8.962 8.895 8.828 8.762 8.698 8.634 8.571 8.509 8.448 8.388 8.328 8.270 8.212 8.155 8.099 8.144 7.989 7.935 7.882 7.830 7.778 7.727 7.676 7.627 7.578 7.529 7.481 7.434 7.387 7.341 7.296 7.251 7.206 7.163 7.119 7.076 7.034 6.993 6.951 6.910 6.870 6.830 6.790 6.752 6.713 6.675 6.637 6.600 6.563 6.526 6.490

US Gals Per lb
0.1116 0.1124 0.1133 0.1141 0.1150 0.1158 0.1167 0.1175 0.1184 0.1192 0.1201 0.1209 0.1218 0.1226 0.1235 0.1243 0.1252 0.1260 0.1269 0.1277 0.1286 0.1294 0.1303 0.1311 0.1320 0.1328 0.1337 0.1345 0.1354 0.1362 0.1371 0.1379 0.1388 0.1396 0.1405 0.1413 0.1422 0.1430 0.1439 0.1447 0.1456 0.1464 0.1473 0.1481 0.1490 0.1498 0.1507 0.1515 0.1524 0.1532 0.1541

A.P.I

Gravity
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Baum Gravity
50.57 51.55 52.54 53.53 54.52 55.51 56.50 57.49 58.48 59.47 60.46 61.45 62.44 63.43 64.42 65.41 66.40 67.39 68.37 69.36 70.35 71.34 72.33 73.32 74.31 75.30 76.29 77.28 78.27 79.26 80.25 81.24 82.23 83.22 84.20 85.19 86.18 87.17 88.16 89.15 90.14 91.13 92.12 93.11 94.10 95.09 96.08 97.07 98.06 99.05

Specific Gravity
0.7753 0.7711 0.7669 0.7628 0.7587 0.7547 0.7507 0.7467 0.7428 0.7389 0.7351 0.7313 0.7275 0.7238 0.7201 0.7165 0.7128 0.7093 0.7057 0.7022 0.6988 0.6953 0.6919 0.6886 0.6852 0.6819 0.6787 0.6754 0.6722 0.6690 0.6659 0.6628 0.6597 0.6566 0.6536 0.6506 0.6476 0.6446 0.6417 0.6388 0.6360 0.6331 0.6303 0.6275 0.6247 0.6220 0.6193 0.6166 0.6139 0.6112

Lbs Per US Gal

6.455 6.420 6.385 6.350 6.316 6.283 6.249 6.216 6.184 6.151 6.119 6.087 6.056 6.025 5.994 5.964 5.934 5.904 5.874 5.845 5.817 5.788 5.759 5.731 5.703 5.676 5.649 5.622 5.595 5.568 5.542 5.516 5.491 5.465 5.440 5.415 5.390 5.365 5.341 5.316 5.293 5.269 5.246 5.222 5.199 5.176 5.154 5.131 5.109 5.086

US Gals Per lb
0.1549 0.1558 0.1566 0.1575 0.1583 0.1592 0.1600 0.1609 0.1617 0.1626 0.1634 0.1643 0.1651 0.1660 0.1668 0.1677 0.1685 0.1694 0.1702 0.1711 0.1719 0.1728 0.1736 0.1745 0.1753 0.1762 0.1770 0.1779 0.1787 0.1796 0.1804 0.1813 0.1821 0.1830 0.1838 0.1847 0.1855 0.1864 0.1872 0.1881 0.1889 0.1898 0.1906 0.1915 0.1924 0.1932 0.1940 0.1949 0.1957 0.1966

The above tables are based on the weight of 1 gallon (U.S.) of oil with a volume of 231 cubic inches at 60 Fahrenheit in air at 760 mm pressure and 50% humidity. Assumed weight of 1 gallon of water at 60 Fahrenheit in air is 8.32828 pounds. The relation of Degrees Baum or API to Specific Gravity is expressed by the following formulas: For liquids lighter than water: Degrees Baum =
140 G
130 , G =
140 130 + Degrees Baume

Degrees API =

141.5 G

131.5 , G =

141.5 131.5 + Degrees A.P.I.

For liquids heavier than water: Degrees Baum = 145 145 G

, G=

145 145 - Degrees Baume

G = Specific Gravity = ratio of the weight of a given volume of oil at 60 Fahrenheit to the weight of the same volume of water at 60 Fahrenheit.

Table III Viscosity and Specific Gravity of Common Liquids

Liquid Specific Gravity Viscosity S.U.S. 40 F 60 F 80 F 100 F 120 F 140 F 160 F Miscellaneous Liquids Water 1.0 31.5 31.5 Gasoline .68-.74 30 30 Jet Fuel .74-.85 35 35 Kerosene .78-.82 42 38 Turpentine .86-.87 34 33 Varnish Spar .9 3500 1600 Fuel Oil and Diesel Oil .82-.95 40 38 #1 Fuel Oil .82-.95 70 50 #2 Fuel Oil .82-.95 90 68 #3 Fuel Oil .82-.95 1000 400 #5A Fuel Oil .82-.95 1300 600 #5B Fuel Oil .82-.95 70000 #6 Fuel Oil 100 68 #2D Diesel Fuel Oil .82-.95 200 120 #3D Diesel Fuel Oil .82-.95 1600 600 #4D Diesel Fuel Oil .82-.95 15000 5000 #5D Diesel Fuel Oil .82-.95 Crankcase Oils - Automobile Lubricating Oils SAE 10 .88-.935 1500-2400 600-900 SAE 20 .88-.935 2400-9000 900-3000 SAE 30 .88-.935 9000-14000 3000-4400 SAE 40 .88-.935 14000-19000 4400-6000 SAE 50 .88-.935 19000-45000 6000-10000 SAE 60 .88-.935 45000-60000 10000-17000 SAE 70 .88-.935 60000-120000 17000-45000 Transmission Oils - Transmission Gear Lubricants SAE 90 .88-.935 14000 5500 SAE 140 .88-.935 35000 12000 SAE 250 .88-.935 160000 50000 Other Oils Castor Oil .96 36000 9000 Chinawood .943 4000 1800 Coconut .925 1500 500 Cod .928 1800 600 Corn .924 1600 700 Cotton Seed .88-.925 15800 600 Cylinder .82-.95 60000 14000 Navy No. 1 Fuel Oil .989 4000 1100 Navy No. 2 Fuel Oil 1.0 24000 Gas .887 180 90 Insulating 350 150 Lard .912-.925 1100 600 Linseed .925-.939 1500 500 Raw Menhaden .933 1500 500 Neats Foot .917 1000 Olive .912-.918 1500 550 Palm .924 1700 700 Peanut .920 1200 500 Quenching 2400 900 Rape Seed .919 2400 900 Rosin .980 28000 7800 Rosin (Wood) 1.09 Extremely Viscous Sesame .923 1100 500 Soy Bean .927-.98 1200 475 Sperm .883 360 250 Turbine (Light) .91 500 350 Turbine (Heavy) .91 3000 1400 Whale .925 900 450

31.5 30 35 34 32.8 1000 35 45 53 200 490 20000 53 80 280 2000 300-400 400-1100 1100-1800 1800-2400 2400-4000 4000-6000 6000-10000 2200 5000 18000 3000 1000 250 300 400 300 6000 600 8700 60 90 380 250 350 430 320 380 300 450 450 3200 290 270 170 230 700 275

31.5 30 35 33 32.6 650 33 40 45 100 400 9000 45 60 140 900 170-220 220-550 550-800 800-1100 1100-1800 1800-2500 2500-4000 1100 2200 7000 1400 580 140 175 250 176 2700 380 3500 50 65 287 143 140 230 200 221 195 250 250 1500 184 165 110 150 330 170

31.5 30 35 31 32.4 530 31 40 75 330 1900 40 50 90 400 110-130 130-280 280-400 400-550 550-850 850-1200 1200-1800 650 1200 3300 900 400 100 110 175 125 1400 200 1500 45 50 180 110 110 160 150 160 150 180 180 900 130 120 90 200 140

31.5 30 35 30 32 250 30

31.5 30 35 30 32 230 30

60 290 900 36 44 68 260 75-90 90-170 170-240 240-320 320-480 480-580 580-900 380 650 1700 400 300 70 80 100 80 1000 170 900 45 140 85 80 100 100 120 100 130 130 500 90 80 70 150 100

40 240 500 35 40 54 160 60-65 65-110 110-150 150-200 200-280 280-380 380-500 240 400 1000 300 200 60 70 80 70 400 90 480 40 90 70 70 80 80 90 80 90 90 300 60 70 60 100 80

Table IV Viscosity Conversion Table

SUS Saybolt Universal Seconds 31 35 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 150 200 250 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 SFS Saybolt Furol Seconds Kinematic Viscosity Centistokes (Centipoises) 1.00 2.56 4.30 7.40 10.20 12.83 15.35 17.80 20.20 31.80 43.10 54.30 65.40 87.60 110.00 132.00 154.00 176.00 198.00 220.00 330.00 440.00 550.00 660.00 880.00 1,100.00 1,320.00 1,540.00 1,760.00 1,980.00 2,200.00 3,300.00 4,400.00 Redwood Seconds (Standard) 29 32.1 36.2 44.3 52.3 60.9 69.2 77.6 85.6 128 170 212 254 338 423 508 592 677 762 896 1,270 1,690 2,120 2,540 3,380 4,230 5,080 5,920 6,770 7,620 8,460 13,700 18,400

12.95 13.70 14.44 15.24 19.30 23.50 28.00 32.50 41.90 51.60 61.40 71.10 81.00 91.00 100.70 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 2,000.00

Kinematic Viscosity (Stokes) = 1 Centistoke 1 Centipoise = =

Absolute Visc. (Poises) Specific Gravity

Stoke 100 Poise

Centipoises The term Centipoises is commonly referred to as a measure of Kinematic Viscosity. Convert centipoises to centistokes by dividing the specific gravity of the solution at the operating temperature. Plotting Viscosity If viscosity is known at any two temperatures, the viscosity at other temperatures can be obtained by plotting the viscosity against temperature in degrees Fahrenheit on log paper. The points lie in a straight line.

100

1 Stoke 1 Poise

= 100 Centistokes = 100 Centipoises

Solids Separators
Application Data
Solids Separators are used for clarification of liquid flow streams. They are well recognized by industry, having today achieved a preferred status. Municipalities and US Governmental Agencies well to recognize tube settlers that are an inefficient version of inclined plate separators. On a worldwide basis, solids settlers have been used for about 20 years in a variety of clarification applications. In short, settlers represent a significant advancement in the state-of-the-art of solids/liquid separation.
Solids/liquid plate separators are now enjoying industry wide acceptance as cost-effective particle removal equipment. They were initially used to remove metal hydroxides from metal finishing wastewaters. his is one of the more difficult solids/liquid separation applications requiring low surface overflow rates coupled with steep angles of plate inclination. From this starting point, plate separators quickly became acceptable equipment in the 1980s to the power industry, pulp and paper, mining, food processors, chemical processing industries, and municipalities on a variety of particle removal applications. Prospective users of this technology can obtain competitive quotes from several qualified manufacturers who make this equipment marketplace available at attractive prices.

A. Fly ash removal systems, B. Coal pile runoff, 8. Metal hydroxide removal, 9. Coal washing and coal slurry separation, 10. Paper fiber reclamation and recovery, 11. Asphalt, sand, and gravel production plants, 12. Cement and lime production plants, 13. Industrial wastewater treatment plants, 14. Hazardous waste treatment facilities, 15. Potable water purification, 16. Cooling water blowdown, and 17. Solids/liquid separation in chemical processing plants.

Sizing Procedure
Solids Separators are sized in the same manner as traditional clarifiers. A surface overflow rate is established at some specific design based upon the settling rates of the particles to be removed. There are three methods that can be used in determining the correct surface overflow rate of a separator. They are: 1. To rely upon published technical data for identical or closely similar applications, 2. By empirical observation and laboratory testing, and/or 3. Theoretical prediction based upon the application of Stokes Law. If the application is of sufficient size and cost, all three methods can be used. In fact, pilot plant testing should be conducted whenever the above three methods fail to produce a consistent surface overflow design rate. Generally speaking, separators provide higher degrees of solids separation than traditional clarifiers at identical surface overflow rates. This permits the utilization of data generated from traditional clarifiers. Should the solids/liquid separation application require chemical feed and flocculation to enhance separation velocities, then jar tests may be necessary in order to determine both chemical feed dosage and resulting particle separation velocities. Again, pilot plant testing may be desirable depending upon the reliability and availability of design data. All PuriSep Solids Separators remove rising and settling particles simultaneously. All Separators can be supplied with skimmer mechanisms to remove separated scum. Since the Solids Separators remove rising particles, in addition to the settleable solids, they

Rather than listing the prospective uses of solids/liquid separators in a comprehensive schedule, it is far easier to indicate the single application that is to be omitted from consideration, and that is secondary clarification of suspended growth biological treatment facilities. In this application, bacteria will (or may) grow on the surface of the separator plates rendering them ineffective. The bacteria will grow so long as dissolved oxygen is present in the waste stream. For virtually every other clarifier type application, separators may be considered. These include: 1. Primary clarification of sanitary wastewaters, 2. Secondary clarification of fixed growth (rotating biological surface and trickling filters) biological treatment facilities, 3. Process water softening, clarification, and purification (in competition with and as a substitute for solids contact type clarifiers), 4. Chemical precipitation plants, 5. Mineral processing, 6. Steel and foundry works, 7. Utilities (fossil fuel fired)

may be used where the primary treatment application is removal of scum particles, including oil and/or grease. Therefore, should the treatment application ever change from removing solids to that of removing scum, the same equipment may be used. And if the raw water contains both rising and settling particles, and removal of both types is desirable, the PuriSep Solids Separator is an ideal equipment choice. Furthermore, all Solids Separators may be retrofitted and thereby converted to Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) treatment should this process modification become desirable. No other separator provides this comprehensive degree of process treatment flexibility, or compatibility.
Table V Application Lime Softening gpd/sq ft gpm/sq ft

three methods are used to determine the design surface overflow rate. The first method permits reliance on published data for identical or closely similar applications. For example, the surface loading rates for some common applications are shown in Table V.

Low Magnesium High Magnesium

Alum Coagulation

2,000 1,600 1,200 950 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,000 800

1.39 1.11 0.83 0.66 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.69 0.56

Figure 19

Turbidity Removal Color Removal

Secondary Clarification

Fixed Growth Systems Suspended Growth* Contact Stabilization Step Aeration Extended Aeration Separate Nitrification

* Not recommended for inclined plate separators

Sludge Removal Considerations

Sludge concentration in the sludge holding compartment will generally range from 1% to 5% suspended solids by weight. This sludge may be thickened to higher solids levels in sludge thickeners. To be remembered is that the Solids Separator is primarily a particle removal device. Its separated solids or sludge holding capacity is limited. Accordingly, sludge removal is to be accomplished at a rate that matches, or slightly exceeds, sludge separation rates. Accumulated sludge should not be stored in the sludge holding compartment. Most sludge, and virtually all chemical type sludges, will harden on storage. Therefore, sludge removal must match or exceed sludge production.

The second method requires empirical observation through laboratory testing. The procedure is extremely simple, accurate, and reliable for scale-up design purposes. Figure 19 shows a graduate cylinder or a beaker. 1. 2. Prepare apparatus as is indicated above. Introduce thoroughly mixed and fully suspended sample up to the level of Mark 1 and immediately start timer. 3. Stop timer at moment when all suspension in liquid is even or level with Mark 2. 4. Settling velocity is calculated as: =
30H t

Vp where H t 5.

= inches/minute

= height in inches, and = time in seconds

Solids Separator Selection

As a necessary first step prior to separator sizing, the settling velocity of the particles to be removed must be determined. Under the section on Sizing Procedure,

Repeat steps #2 through #4 two more times and then average the three results

The third method is a theoretical prediction based upon the use of Stokes Law. For example, lets determine the settling velocity of 30 micron sized particles with a

density of 2.1 gm/cc suspended in water @ 20C. Stokes Law is: Vp where Vp G =
G 18av (dp d c )D 2

Vp

= =

Q A
1000 GPM 2000 sq ft

= settling velocity in cm/sec, = gravity constant of 980.665 cm/sec2, = absolute viscosity of carrier fluid in poises (for water viscosities & densities see Table I, page 15) = density of particle to be removed in gm/cc, = density of carrier fluid in gm/cc, = diameter of particle to be removed in centimeters

= 0.5 gpm/sq ft, or = 0.6684 feet/minute, or = 0.8 inches/minute In other words, an over flow rate of 0.5 gpm/sq ft (720 GPD/sq ft) is the same as and equivalent to the statement that the separator (clarifier) is capable of removing all particles with a minimum settling rate of 0.8 inches/minute. See comparisons in Table VI. Surface overflow rates, however, should be closely reviewed to prevent non-laminar settling conditions from occurring. Summarizing, in order to select and rate a separator (clarifier), one must know any two of these three items: 1. Flow 2. Surface Area, 3. Minimum settling velocity of particles to be removed. In practice, the flow is generally known but the particle settling rates and required surface area are both unknowns. Therein lies the reason for determining settling velocities.
Table VI Surface Overflow Rate gpm/ gpd/ sq ft sq ft 0.25 360 Settling Rate of Particle Removed inch/ m/h minute 0.4 0.61

dp dc D

substituting, we have Vp =
980.665 18(0.010050) (2.1 0.998)(3 x10

3 2 )

= 0.0538 cm/sec, or times 23.628 = 1.271 inches/minute Having now determined the design rate settling velocity, and knowing the design flow, we can establish a surface overflow rate. For example, lets say the design settling rate of particles to be removed is 1.271 inch/minute at a design flow of 1000 gpm. From page 1 Equation #1, we know that: Vp =
Q A
Q Vp

, and also that

m3/ m2 d 14.7

substituting, we have A =
1000 GPM 1.271 in / min

0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

720 1,080 1,440 1,800 2,160

29.4 44.1 58.7 73.4 88.1

0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4

1.22 1.82 2.43 3.04 3.65

= 1262 sq ft required, and again substituting, we have A =

1000 GPM 1262 sq ft

= 0.792 gpm/sq ft, or = 1141 GPD/sq ft overflow rating On the other hand, if there already exists a separator (or clarifier) with a known separation area and flow, we can determine the settling velocity of the particles that will be removed, disregarding efficiency factors. Lets say the separator (clarifier) has a separation area of 2,000 sq ft and a flow of 1,000 gpm. Again:

As a practical matter, if the particles that require removal have a settling velocity of less than about 0.75 inches/minute, chemical feed and flocculation should be considered. Its also possible that DAF (Dissolved Air Flotation) may be a cost-effective alternative to a solids separator. Since the PuriSep Separation Systems may include chemical feed, flocculation, and flotation separators, our ability to recommend the most cost-effective treatment system is not encumbered by process or equipment limitations. Another extremely promising particle/liquid separation process utilizes chemical precipitation technology. This process, called OPCT (Optimized

Physical/Chemical Treatment), achieves optimized chemical treatment by careful control of the precipitation process. A detailed description is contained in WSE Publication 995.

negotiated cost basis depending on complexity, duration, and location of pilot test site. The following Application Data Sheet identifies both raw water characteristics, and solid/liquid separation requirements. In order to recommend the most cost-effective equipment for the application under consideration, it is extremely important to know the requested data. This is especially true when the flow stream contains a multiplicity of particles, only some of which need to be separated to satisfy removal requirements.

Laboratory Testing
The WaterSmart Environmental laboratory is available to analyze samples for the purposes of determining settling velocities, conducting jar tests for flocculation or emulsion breaking, and selecting chemical feed dosages. Pilot plant testing is also available. All laboratory testing is provided on a no cost, no obligation basis. Pilot plant testing is available on a

Notes

Application Data Sheet

Application: Brief description of solids separator intended use:

Capacities: A. Design Flow Rate: B. Peak Flow Rate & Duration: C. Surface Overflow Rate: Raw Water Characteristics: A. Suspended Solids Concentration: B. Solids Settling Rate: C. Solids Specific Gravity or Density: D. Temperature of Liquid: E. pH of Liquid: F. Specific Gravity of Liquid: Treated Water Requirements: A. Suspended Solids or Turbidity: B. BOD or COD: C. Does NPDES Permit Apply? D. Other: No Yes Copy Attached No Yes Normal Normal Maximum Maximum Minimum Minimum

Continued on the next page

No Cost Laboratory Evaluation: Send (freight prepaid) a two gallon sample of raw feed water along with a small quantity of special treatment chemicals, if any, to our Analytical Laboratory. A wide-mouth, non-breakable, and corrosion resistant (plastic) bottle is preferred. Do not send toxic or otherwise dangerous samples without proper identification of the hazardous waste materials. Sample (check one) Has been sent Will be sent Will not be sent Shipping date: via:

Completed Laboratory Report should be sent to: Company: Address:

Telephone: Attention: Email:

Fax: Ext:

WaterSmart Environmental Local Representative: Notes: 1. The data provided on this Application Data Sheet is our primary source of design information. The more relevant this information, the faster and more accurate our laboratory work will be. Should we have questions concerning this application, our laboratory staff will contact you. 2. We would like to know a little about the process that generates the solids separator application. A process flow sheet would be ideal. We are not interested in receiving any information you regard as secret or proprietary. 3. Please define as accurately as you can the degree of treatment required to satisfy the application. If EPA or State permit requirements are to be met, please advise the discharge limitations. 4. How would you like to dispose of the separated solids? To what degree does the sludge need to be dewatered? 5. Do you plan to use treatment chemicals? Is pH adjustment a necessity or a consideration? May treatment chemicals be used if they are found to be advantageous to particle separation? 6. Biodegradable samples (food, pulp & paper, etc.) should be preserved before shipment. Please add 1% to 2% by volume of 35% formaldehyde and ship as fast as is possible, preferably an overnight delivery carrier. Please notify us one day prior to your shipment so we can schedule the immediate testing of your sample on the day received. Do not ship perishable samples on Friday, or preceding a holiday.

Oil/Water Separators
Application Data
Oil/Water Separators have been used for the last fifty years to remove floating oil from petroleum processing facilities and their storm drainage systems. The American Petroleum Institute (API) has published oil/water separator design information. The API recommendations have been widely adopted, both in this country and abroad. Oil/water separators that have been designed according to Chapters 5 & 6 of the API Design Manual are called API Basins or API Separators. They consist of long, shallow, rectangular concrete built-in-place basins. Their design enables removal of all oil particles 150 micron in size and larger. Treated effluent from API basins generally contain about 100 mg/L of free oil. Since 1972, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has significantly reduced the concentration of oil allowable in refinery and other stormwater discharges. The API basin cannot comply with the current treatment requirements. This has led to the development of more efficient oil/water separation equipment. For the most part, oil/water separators utilizing corrugated plates have fulfilled the need for better oil/water separation equipment. Surface oil skimming devices consisting of rotating discs, endless belts, surface skimmers, and similar equipment are not to be confused with oil/water separators. Surface oil collection devices remove accumulated surface oil only. They do not remove oil particles entrained in the liquid flow stream. They are, therefore, to be regarded as gross collected oil removal devices. Oil skimming devices are not capable of treating liquid flow to the EPA maximum allowable concentration limitations. In May, 1979, the API published Bulletin No. 1630, which officially recognized the oil/water separation capability afforded by corrugated plate separators. This publication was followed in 1990 by API Publication 421, which contains design and sizing information on gravity type oil/water separators. In 1992 the EPA published Sand Filter Design for Water Quality Treatment of stormwater. In 1994 the US Army Corps of Engineers published an ETL (engineering technical letter) on the selection and design of oil/water separators at Army facilities. Also in 1994 WaterSmart Environmental issued Publication 194 on Equipment Maintenance Wastewater Treatment at Commercial Yards, Garages, and Repair Facilities, Publication 294 on Stormwater Runoff and Washdown Treatment at Automotive Dealership/Service Stations, Publication 394 on A Historical Review of Oil/Water Separator Designs, and Publication 494 on Stormwater Runoff Treatment at Automotive Wrecking/Salvage Yards. The installation of oil/water separators in this country now numbers in excess of 15,000 to reflect their widespread acceptance.

In general, oil/water separators fall into two distinct applications because the raw water characteristics and the treated water requirements both vary. They are: 1. Stormwater with discharge to the environment under an NPDES permit A. Stormwater may contain a. Free oils/fuels b. Suspended solids w/heavy metals c. Dissolved organics and nutrients B. Stormwater may be treated using a. Inclined corrugated plate gravity oil/water separators b. Perimeter trench sand filters 2. Industrial wastewater with discharge to the local treatment plant or zero discharge with water recycling A. Industrial wastewater may contain a. Free oils/fuels b. Chemically emulsified oils due to the use of detergents c. Suspended solids w/heavy metals d. Dissolved organics and nutrients B. Industrial wastewater may be treated by using a. High performance oil/water separators which utilize both filtration and adsorption technologies b. Chemical precipitation c. Dissolved air flotation

Types of Oily Separation

Impurities

and

Their

The oily impurities in stormwater and the wastewaters from refineries and other oil processing operations can be present in four different forms. Each form required a different type of treatment for its effective removal. If more than one form of oil is present, effective removal may require a multiple stage treatment system.
Free Oil

Chemically Emulsified Oil Chemically emulsified oil particles are less than 1 micron in size. They do not rise to the surface of the water in which they are contained, no matter how much rising time is allowed. Chemically emulsified oil in wastewaters is usually due to the presence of detergents or alkali contaminants.

Free oil rises to the surface of the water in which it is contained. The rate of rise of the oil particle is a function of its size and specific gravity as defined by Stokes Law. The larger the particle, the faster it rises. Free oil is the most common and usually the predominant oily impurity in wastewater from stormwater and oil processing facilities. Usually more than 95% numerically of the oil droplets in a mixture of water and free oil are larger than 50 microns in size. This translates into 99%+ by weight. Free oil is most economically removed in an oil/water separator utilizing inclined corrugated plates. The oil concentration in the effluent from a PuriSep Oil/Water Separator is less than 10 mg/L provided there are no emulsions and/or dissolved oils in the influent feed.
Mechanically Emulsified Oil

Exposure of a free oil and water mixture to severe turbulence will break up the oil into very small droplets, or particles. These particles will range in size from 10 to 40 microns and are called a mechanical emulsion of oil in water. In the transfer of oily wastewater, centrifugal pumps, flow restricting orifices, short radius elbows, and other appurtenances generating turbulence should be avoided, where possible, to avoid the formation of mechanically emulsified oil. Mechanically emulsified oil may be economically removed in an oil/water separator utilizing Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) to assist particle separation. In this process, micron sized air particles attach to the mechanically emulsified oil particles and float them to the liquid surface. Since these oil particles are so small, they do not possess a sufficient rise rate, or separation rate, to permit simple gravity separation. Mechanically emulsified oils may also be removed by oleophilic media filtration/adsorption. Should free oil be present in concentrations greater than 2,000 mg/L along with the mechanically emulsified oil, removal of the free oil will be necessary before DAF removal of the mechanically emulsified oil is attempted. The presence of large quantities of free oil retards the ability of the DAF process to remove the mechanically emulsified oil particles. The oil concentration in the effluent from this system is less than 10 mg/L provided there exists no chemically emulsified and/or dissolved oil in the influent, and provided further that the free oil concentration is less than the 2,000 mg/L.

Chemically emulsified oil may be economically removed in a two-stage PuriSep separation system consisting of a first stage CorruFloc flocculator followed by a second stage DAF flotation separator. The purpose of the flocculator is to break the chemical emulsion so that the small micron sized particles can agglomerate together forming a floc of sufficient size to permit air attachment and subsequent removal by flotation. Should free oil be present in concentrations greater than 2,000 mg/L along with chemically emulsified oil, removal of the free oil will be necessary before DAF removal of the chemically emulsified oil is attempted. The presence of large quantities of free oil retards the ability of the DAF process to remove the chemically emulsified oil. While it is theoretically possible to have both types of emulsified oil, that is, both mechanically emulsified and chemically emulsified oils, present in the same waste stream, as a practical matter, only one type will usually be present. Should both be present, or should the raw water characteristics change from one type of emulsion to the other, the chemically emulsified oil treatment system will also remove the mechanically emulsified oil particles. The oil concentration in the effluent from a DAF system is less than 10 mg/L provided there is no dissolved oil in the influent, and provided further that the free oil concentration is less than 2,000 mg/L. Chemically emulsified oils may also be removed by adsorption or chemical precipitation technologies. Granular activated carbon (GAC) is a commonly used adsorber to remove these oils. Likewise, if powdered activated carbon (PAC) is used with chemical precipitation, successful emulsified oil removal can be accomplished. The choice of technologies to be used in the removal of chemically emulsified oils depends on: 1. Raw water characteristics 2. Treated water requirements 3. Size of application Since several technologies can be considered, the most cost-effective selection will differ depending on the above variables. Therefore it is quite appropriate to cost out each of the several alternatives available.
Dissolved Oil

Dissolved oil.is no longer present in the form of discrete particles. Therefore, it cannot be removed from the flow stream with an oil/water separator. Shortchain hydrocarbons such as hexane have limited solubility in water, but long-chain hydrocarbons are practically insoluble. Aromatic compounds such as benzene

and toluene, phenol, etc., are quite soluble in water and are considered as oil in most analyses. Should dissolved oil be present in quantities sufficient to warrant removal, the use of air stripping, activated carbon absorption columns, biological treatment, or all three may be considered. Selection of the most costeffective dissolved oil removal system depends upon the kinds of oils present, their respective concentrations, and required removals.

1,000 gallons wastewater). Alum solution feed strength is usually between 5 and 10%. The use of polyelectrolytes usually enhances floc formation and shear resistant qualities, both of which are necessary for optimum flotation separation. The dosage of polyelectrolytes is generally in the 1 to 2 mg/L range at a concentration between 0.1 to 0.2%. When polyelectrolytes are used along with alum, the alum is added upstream from the polyelectrolyte feed location to permit alum-water reactions to take place. Difficultto-break emulsions frequently respond to calcium chloride treatment prior to flocculation. Occasionally, pH adjustment may be necessary prior to chemical addition. A chemical analysis of an oily wastewater sample does not by itself indicate the quantity of alum or supplemental chemicals needed for successful treatment. The coagulant demand is largely dependent upon certain chemical and physical properties. These properties include the quantity and types of particles in suspension and their zeta potential, pH conditions, alkalinity, emulsifying agents, bactericides, and other materials that may be present. Jar tests are the only reliable method of determining chemical feed requirements on a consistent basis and are therefore recommended on any waste stream that contains chemical emulsified oil that requires removal.

Treatment Options
A classification of oil removal capabilities is given in Table VII below:
Table VII Type of Oily Contaminants Free Oil Mechanically Emulsified Oil Type of Separation System Oil/Water Separator PuriSep DAF Separator or ContamAway I Adsorption Separator Combination CorruFloc Flocculator Chemically & PuriSep DAF Separator or ConEmulsified Oil tamAway II Adsorption Separator Mixture of Multi-Stage Flocculator Above and/or Separators

Emulsion Breaking
The breaking of a mechanical emulsion is generally not required since the oil particle is sufficiently large to permit air attachment and subsequent removal by flotation. The breaking of chemical emulsions is, on the other hand, quite necessary because of the extremely small size of the emulsified oil particle. Unfortunately, the breaking of a chemical emulsion is more art than science. Oxidizing agents such as ozone and potassium permanganate have been employed. For the most part, chemical emulsions are most quickly and economically broken by the use of alum along with various polyelectrolytes. In determining the most effective method to treat each oily waste, jar tests are usually performed. Jar tests establish the chemicals and/or coagulant aids required, the chemical feed dosages, and the degree of treatment achievable. Often coagulation with alum alone will break simple emulsions. The aluminum ion neutralizes any anionic surface charges on the suspended particles or oil droplets. The excess aluminum ion forms hydrous oxide, which provides a surface on which the oil is absorbed. Floc formation is the result of alums reaction with the alkalinity normally present in most wastewaters. The dosage of alum required to achieve emulsion breaking and floc formation will vary from one type of wastewater to the next, but generally will be in the range from 90 to 180 mg/L (0.75 lbs to 1.5 lbs alum per

Sizing Procedure
Oil/Water Separators are sized in the same manner as traditional clarifiers. A surface overflow rate is established at some specific design based upon the rising rates of the oil particles to be removed. There are three methods that can be used in the determination of the appropriate surface overflow rate of a separator. They are: 1. To rely upon published technical data for identical or closely similar applications, 2. By empirical observation and laboratory testing, and/or 3. Theoretical prediction based upon the application of Stokes Law. If the application is of sufficient size and cost, all three methods can be used. In fact, pilot plant testing should be conducted whenever the above three methods fail to produce a reliable overflow design rate. Generally speaking, separators provide higher degrees of oil/water separation than traditional clarifiers at identical surface overflow rates. This permits the utilization of data generated from traditional clarifiers. Should the oil/water separation application require chemical feed and flocculation to enhance separation velocities, then jar tests may be necessary in order to determine both chemical feed dosage and resulting particle separation velocities. Again, pilot plant testing may be desirable depending upon the reliability and availability of textbook design data.

Sources of Oily Waste

Table VIII SIC Industry Description Natural fats and oils resulting from animal and plant processing, including slaughtering, cleaning, and by-product processing. Oil and grease from wool scouring and cotton finishing operations. Light and heavy oils resulting from the production, refining, storage, transportation, and retailing of petroleum and petroleum products. Rolling and drawing oils resulting from mill rinses and scale pit effluents of ferrous and non-ferrous metals manufacture.

20 27 29 33 34, 35, 37, ---

Food Processing Textile Manufacturing Petroleum Primary Metals

Fabricated Metals, MachinGrinding, lubricating, stamping, and cutting oils employed in ferrous and ery, & Transportation Equipnon-ferrous metal fabricating and rinsed from parts in clean-up operations. ment Dilute oil-containing cooling water, from leakage in pumps, condensers, Cooling & Heating heat exchangers, etc. Oils and greases generated during the repair, maintenance, fueling, and Transportation Services cleaning of transportation vehicles and facilities. flow stream several times (particle reentrainment) en route to its destination. Also note that rising and settling particles are migrating to their respective destinations on the same side of the plate. A kissing cousin of the Figure 20 separator utilizes vertical plates with inclined corrugations rather than inclined ribs. See Figure 21.

True Inclined Plate Separators

Several marketplace products are represented as inclined plate separators. Most of these are not, however, true inclined plate separators. An example is shown in Figure 20. This separator uses vertical plates with inclined right angle ribs. Note that a once separated particle must pass through the active

90

View A-A

Flow path ISOMETRIC VIEW (Single Plate) Common hydraulic passageway between adjacent plates

ISOMETRIC VIEW (Slant Rib Plate Pack) Potentially reentrained settling particles

Common particle migration zone " 1 "

Potentially reentrained rising particles

Figure 20

View A-A

Flow path ISOMETRIC VIEW (Single Plate) Common hydraulic passageway between adjacent plates Common particle migration zone ISOMETRIC VIEW (Slant Rib Plate Pack) Potentially reentrained settling particles Potentially reentrained rising particles "

Figure 21

About the only positive with this design is a lower Reynolds Number than the inclined rib design in Figure 20. The same deficiencies regarding particle migration, however, still exist in the above design. Another misrepresented inclined plate separator is shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22

Even though the plates are indeed inclined, their lengths have been arbitrarily shortened to accommodate ease of assembly. Note that once separated particles (those having reached a boundary layer) must again pass through the active flow stream (particle reentrainment) en route to their liquid surface or vessel floor destinations. This particular closed-in design utilizes polypropylene (oleophilic) plastic. The manufacturer claims both self-flushing and easy-to-clean characteristics and therefore minimum maintenance. These overt claims are scoffed at by end users of the product.

to the bottom thus maintaining a uniform cross section. As a practical matter, if a separator design accomplishes effective separation and removal of settling particles, it should also achieve excellent removal of rising particles. Both features ought to be considered in the selection of a preferred design. A true inclined plate separator uses full-length plates as shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25
Full-length plates absolutely eliminate the possibility of particle reentrainment since once-separated particles stay separated as they migrate along a boundary layer (immediately adjacent to plate) and therefore cannot become reentrained thus maximizing effluent quality. Figure 26 exhibits the removal of rising and settling particles on opposite sides of plates.

Figure 23

Yet another misrepresentation is the characterization of the following type separator as an inclined corrugated plate separator. See Figure 23. This product uses inclined plates that have corrugations. The plates are inclined but the individual corrugations are horizontal. As the oil rises to the ceiling of each plate it must thereafter slide up additional corrugations to reach the surface of the vessel. The solids that separate out will tend to fill each of the corrugations as shown in Figure 24.

Figure 26

Figure 24

After solids have filled the corrugations, the flow must become turbulent as the flow passageway at cross section A is much greater than the passageway at section B. In order to maintain laminar flow, the flow passageway must remain uniform in cross section. The oil removal capacity of this design mostly disappears as soon as sludge fills the corrugations. In a true corrugated plate separator, the plates and the corrugations are both inclined thereby permitting the sludge to slide

Note: If a rising oil particle touches a settling sludge particle, the resulting oily sludge particle may well exhibit neutral gravity and thus resist effective separation to the detriment of effluent quality. Achieving separation of rising and settling particles on opposite sides of each inclined plate greatly enhances separator performance when both types of particles are present as they usually are. True inclined plate separators use a non-oleophilic material, like fiberglass, with smooth surfaces on each side to promote particles to slide to their destinations at a generous angle of repose (inclination angle). The less the angle of repose the less expensive the separator. When in doubt the use of a 55 minimum angle of

inclination and fiberglass plates will insure excellent particle migration along the plate surfaces at Reynolds Numbers up to 500.

True inclined plate separators may be either parallel flow or cross flow. In a parallel flow separator, the direction of fluid flow is cocurrent or countercurrent to the direction of oil particle migration as shown in Figures 27 and 28, respectively. In a cross flow separator, the fluid flow is perpendicular to the direction of particle migration as shown in Figure 29.

Figure 27

By comparison, the use of inclined plates at less than 45 or the use of oleophilic plates at all angles of inclination represents designs that are susceptible to plugging. Plate spacing at " will virtually eliminate the plugging whereas plate spacing at " or even " will accelerate this condition and the associated loss of effluent quality.

Figure 29

In a cocurrent or countercurrent separator, some particle reentrainment can occur as a result of particles passing through an active flow stream as is shown in Figures 30 and 31.

Figure 30

Figure 28

True inclined plate separators may use either flat or corrugated plates. Flat plates accomplish singular particle coalescence in the direction of particle migration along the plate surface as a faster migrating particle catches up to a slower migrating particle. Corrugated plates accomplish dual particle coalescence. In addition to the particle coalescence achieved in the direction of particle migration (identical to flat plates), corrugated plates accomplish coalescence in the direction of fluid flow. As a particle settles (or rises) to a boundary layer, it thereafter slides to a trough as it migrates to its destination. Its the sliding into a trough that constitutes the additional coalescence than that exhibited by flat plates.

Particle reentrainment always degrades separator performance. This phenomenon cannot occur in a cross flow type separator provided the Reynolds Number is less than 500 and full-length plates are used. True inclined plate separators use gravity separation rather than adsorption to remove oil. Stokes Law establishes the separation rate of discrete particles relative to size of particles, specific gravity differential between the particles and their carrier fluid, and the temperature of the carrier fluid. Several manufacturers of oil/water separators include devices such as polypropylene (oleophilic) perforated tubes, polypropylene filament filters, and even polypropylene plates all of which accomplish removal of oil through the mechanism of adsorption rather than gravity separation. Notwithstanding this fact, adsorption type separators

are routinely marketed under the name of enhanced gravity, petro-pak coalescer, or coalescer so as to disguise the true process of oil removal.

Figure 31

Some 15 companies sell polypropylene based (oleophilic) adsorption type products to industries and remediation contractors to soak up (through the phenomenon of surface adsorption) oily spills, drips, and/or contaminants. The mechanism of oil removal is identical whether the oleophilic product is housed in an oil/water separator or otherwise. To call an adsorption device by a name that implies gravity separation is a clear misrepresentation of the technology being used. As a backdrop, oleophilic adsorption devices are extremely inexpensive to make and most effective in removing oily particles but their useful life is extremely short. These devices must be replaced when their adsorptive capacity is reached, or when they otherwise become plugged with solids. Gravity type separators are more expensive initially but they continue to perform year after year with only minimal maintenance required. Short term cost savings are invariably outweighed by long term maintenance expenses. Therefore, if the oil/water separator design under consideration utilizes oleophilic polypropylene, the end user should be prepared to accomplish heavy maintenance to maintain effluent quality.

Figure 32

Table IX Projected Separation Area Angle of Inclination Separation Area of 32 sq ft Plate in sq ft 16.00 60

55 45 30

18.35 22.63 27.71

Plate Inclination Angle

Projected plate separation area is determined by multiplying the actual plate area by the cosine of the angle of inclination. As examples, a 4 ft x 8 ft plate inclined at 60 has a projected separation area of 16 sq ft as shown in Figure 32. Similarly, the same 32 sq ft plate has greater area projections at lesser angles of inclination as is shown in Table IX.

The lesser the angle of inclination the more susceptible the separator becomes to plugging with solids. If the angle of inclination is insufficient to overcome the angle of repose of the particles, the separator will foul after but a short operating period. Therefore, even though lesser angles possess greater separation areas, the lesser angles also result in heavy maintenance cleaning requirements. Even though a separator with greater angles of inclination posses lesser projected plate areas, the associated one time increase in cost far outweighs persistent increased maintenance costs associated with lesser angles of inclination. An inclination angle of 55 always exceeds the angle of

repose and is therefore recommended as a minimum angle.

Q Vp 575 gal / min 0.461 in / min 12 in 1 ft 1 cu ft 7.481 gal

Free Oil Removal

In order to design any oil/water separator four things are required:

substituting, we have A =
x x

1. Design temperature of operation. As the temperature drops, liquid viscosities increase thereby decreasing particle separation rates. Performance of oil/water separators therefore decreases with falling liquid temperatures. 2. Specific gravity differential (or density difference) between the oil to be removed and the carrier liquid. 3. The diameter of the minimum sized oil particle to be removed. 4. The design flow rate at the design temperature of operation. A typical example could be as follows: 1. Design temperature = 20 C 2. Gravity differential = 0.10 gm/cc 3. Diameter of minimum sized oil particle to be removed = 60 microns 4. Flow is 575 GPM Step #1 requires us to calculate the separation velocity of the minimum sized oil particle to be removed. Stokes Law can provide this: Vp where Vp G =
G 18av (d c dp )D 2

= 2,000 sq ft of effective separation area required to remove 60-micron oil particles at the design conditions Now in order to predict the concentration of oil in the effluent of the preceding oil/water separator, two things are required: initial oil concentration in water, and oil particle distribution at the design conditions. For the purpose of an example, lets assume the following: 1. Oil concentration = 1,000 mg/L, and 2. Oil particle distribution at the design conditions as follows: (typical stormwater runoff distribution)
Table X Oil Particle in Microns greater than 150 Size % Concentration by Weight 90

150 to 120 120 to 90 90 to 60 less than 60

5 2.5 2 0.5

= separation velocity (rise rate) of oil particle to be removed. = gravity constant of 980.665 cm/sec2, = absolute viscosity of carrier fluid in poises (for water viscosities & densities see Table I) = density of particle to be removed in gm/cc, = density of carrier fluid in gm/cc

dp dc D

Since the example oil/water separator will remove all oil particles 60 micron in size and larger, 99.5% of the influent oil will be removed. 99.5% removal of 1,000 mg/L initial oil concentration leaves 5 mg/L oil in the effluent. There are no short cuts to these projected plate area and treatment efficiency calculations. Therefore, a supplier cannot technically guarantee the effluent quality of an oil/water separator unless the following are either known or presumed: 1. Water temperature 2. Oil and water density difference 3. Minimum oil particle removal size 4. Design water flow rate 5. Inlet oil concentration 6. Oil particle concentration (by weight) distribution characteristics.

= diameter of particle to be removed in centimeters. substituting, we have Vp =

980.665 18 (0.010050) (0.10) (6 x 10

3 2 )

= 0.0195 cm/sec, or times 23.628 = 0.461 inches/minute Step #2 requires us to calculate the effective surface area of the separator to remove those oil particles with a separation velocity of 0.461 in/min. From page 1 Equation #1, we know that: Vp =
Q A

The Relationship between Projected and Effective Plate Separation Area

The Stokes Law calculations to determine projected plate separation area do not take into account the efficiency of a separation device. Flow bypassing, flow distribution across the inlet face, treated water collec-

, and also that

tion, and laminar flow all impact on particle removal efficiency. A well designed unit such as a PuriSep oil/water separator will exhibit 95% particle removal efficiency whereas a poorly designed unit may exhibit but 35% efficiency. Reputable oil/water separator manufacturers will have compared the results of their separators against the theoretical results to arrive at the efficiency of operation. This is referred to as an efficiency factor.
The efficiency factor multiplied by the projected plate separation area equals the effective separation area.

Some manufacturers use a term called a safety factor to reflect the presence of an apparent excess amount of separation area. A 2.86 safety factor, for example, is the same as an efficiency factor of 35% since 100 35 equals 2.86. Oil/water separators that use corrugated fiberglass (non-oleophilic) plates at a high angle of inclination (55 minimum) will exhibit excellent efficiencies for extended periods (many years). Oil/water separators which use flat plates, oleophilic plates (polyethylene, polypropylene, or Teflon), rough surface plates (PVC) or low angles of inclination (less than 55) will exhibit lesser efficiencies over a much shorter time frame measured in months rather than years. Lesser efficiencies always require more expensive maintenance procedures over the life of the installation. Therefore greater efficiencies are extremely important to achieve and may be considered as a specified feature.

face area of the plates, tubes, or filters rather than the projected area. One company even claims both sides of each plate in arriving at projected area, a scientific impossibility. Since the end user, or their consulting engineer, usually does not detect this vital substitution, widespread abuse of the term surface area has occurred. In an effort to mask the real meaning, most vendors frequently use the term coalescing area to imply projected separation area while secretly meaning actual surface area. The obvious motive for such practice is to supply less equipment (less projected plate area) for the price quoted.

Square Feet of Projected Area Per Cubic Foot of Media

Rather than disclose how square feet of projected separation area is arrived at, several vendors simply claim a specific projected area without supporting calculations. To assist the designer in determining the correct projected area, the following figure shows a cubic foot of inclined plate media with inch plate spacing and a 55 angle of inclination.

Surface Area
This term traditionally meant the square feet of floor or separation area possessed by a clarifier. As inclined plate separator technology became introduced, this term was properly applied to the sum of the projected areas of each plate. As competition increased in the marketplace, oil/water separator vendors quickly learned that they could successfully claim credit for the much greater actual surface area of the plates, polypropylene tubes, and polypropylene mesh filters as a substitution for the much smaller projected area that, in fact, existed. This continuing ruse is highly successful for two reasons: 1. The sales and marketing literature of the vendor invariably pays homage to conformance with API design literature, Stokes Law, laminar flow, and to the concept of greatly increased separation area possessed by inclined plates. The above references refer to classical particle separation technology. The reader therefore rightfully expects the represented technology to be delivered in the equipment. 2. The actual product, however, is fraudulently supplied on the basis that the square feet of separation area is satisfied by the actual sur-

Figure 33

The above figure shows 17 plates, 16 of which project area. The actual plate area multiplied by the cosine of the angle of inclination equals the projected area or: 16 x cos 55 = 9.17 sq ft/cu ft The following table was prepared showing projected area per cubic foot of media at different plate spacing and angles of inclination as follows:

Table XI Plate Angle of Inclination Sq Ft/Cu Ft at Plate Spacing of " "

3

/4"

2"

40 45 50 55 60

36.77 39.94 30.85 27.53 24.00

18.38 16.97 15.42 13.76 12.00

12.25 11.31 10.28 9.17 8.00

4.59 4.24 3.85 3.44 3.00

rainwater runoff application, the water flow and oil concentration may vary over a considerable range. The initial flow might be 575 gpm. The initial first flush oil concentration is generally high, usually about 2,000 mg/L, representing oil spilled on operating platforms and pads. A typical initial oil particle distribution is:
Oil Particle Size in Microns greater than 150 % Concentration by Weight 90

150 to 120 120 to 90 90 to 60 less than 60

5 2.5 2 0.5

Plate thickness has not been taken into consideration in arriving at the above figures. Plate thickness would decrease the above plate areas by about 5%. Those vendors who characterize separation areas as sq ft/cu ft of media routinely misrepresent actual projected areas by factors of 2 to 6 times. In order to approximate the actual projected plate area one must know the: 1. Cubic feet of media 2. Plate angle of inclination 3. Plate spacing (vertical distance between adjacent plates)

At this flow (at the example design conditions of temperature and density differential), the separator would remove all particles 60 micron in size and larger or 99.5% of the inlet oil concentration resulting in 0.5% of 2,000 mg/L or 10 mg/L oil in the effluent. After a few minutes, the rainfall rate typically increases significantly, say 2.25 times to 1294 gpm, as the oil concentration and oil particle size simultaneously decrease. A new oil concentration might be 100 mg/L (reflecting that the majority of the spilled oil has already been rinsed away) with a particle distribution of:
Oil Particle Size in Microns greater than 150 % Concentration by Weight 50

The Relationship between Capacity and Performance

If the page example separator were required to treat a two year storm event of 1294 gpm, or 2.25 times as much flow as the example, what sized oil particles would be removed and what would the oil concentration be in the effluent? Solution: At the new flow rate, the surface overflow rate becomes 1294 2,000 sq ft or 0.647 gpm/sq ft This is the same as saying the separator will remove all particles with a separation velocity of: Vp = =
Q A
0.647 gpm / sq ft 1 sq ft x 1 cu ft 7.481 gal x 12 in 1 ft

150 to 120 120 to 90 90 to 60 less than 60

25 15 7.5 2.5

At this flow, as we have seen, the separator will remove all particles 90 microns in size and larger or 90% of the inlet oil concentration resulting in 10% of 100 mg/L or again 10 mg/L oil in the effluent. In this last example, the flows and oil concentrations varied considerably, but the effluent oil concentration remained essentially the same. Knowing the relationship between capacity and performance can prevent the design of excess capacity under certain applications. Designing for a six-month or two-year storm condition is appropriate. Designing for a 25-year event represents excess capacity.

= 1.038 inches/minute, or divided by 23.628 = 0.044 cm/sec Substituting this particle separation velocity in the previous Stokes Law calculation and solving for the oil particle diameter results in a 90-micron oil particle removal size. This means all particles 90 microns and larger will be removed or 97.5% of the influent oil concentration (refer again to the oil concentration particle distribution). The remaining 2.5% amounts to an effluent oil concentration of 25 mg/L (2.5% of 1000 mg/L). Knowing the relationship, then, between capacity and performance enables the designer to specify a costeffective oil/water separator. For example, in a refinery

Oil Particle Size to be removed

The marketplace sales literature on oil/water separators contains differing claims on oil particle size removal capabilities. Some recommend 60 micron, others 20 micron, and some claim 10 micron. The subject is important because the rate of separation of a particle is directly proportional to the square of its diameter. A 20 micron sized particle, for example, would require

nine times as much projected plate separation area to remove as a 60 micron sized particle because 602 202 = 9. Nine times the separation area translates into about 7 times the cost of such a separator. The essential question to be addressed is what size particle requires removal in order to achieve the quality of effluent desired. In this regard, the wastewaters to be treated generally fall into the two categories of stormwater and industrial wastewater. Stormwater can be treated to less than 10 mg/L oil in effluent by removing oily particles down to 60 micron in size since particle size distribution curves reveal the existence of 99.5% of oil particles equal to or larger than 60 microns. The US Army Corps of Engineers, US Navy, and US Air Force all target 60 microns as the removal requirement. Some state agencies (i.e., Department of Ecology, State of Washington) also identify 60 microns as the size to be removed. Industrial wastewaters generally contain chemically and/or mechanically emulsified oils due to the presence of detergents and pumping, respectively. Emulsified oils cannot be effectively removed in a gravity type oil/water separator because oily particle sizes are very small, on the order of 0.1 to 5 microns. Many, if not most, of these particles are so small that Brownian movement absolutely prevents their removal through gravity separation. Gravity type separators are therefore ineffective in treating industrial wastewaters generated from floor cleaning, car/truck washwater, equipment maintenance, and similar activities. In order to remove the oily contaminants from these wastewaters, the use of adsorption or chemical precipitation technologies is necessary. WSE Publication Nos. 894 and 994 address adsorption treatment and WSE Publication Nos. 195, 1194, and 1294 address chemical precipitation treatment. Without exception, every vendor claiming removal of oily particles to 20 micron in size and smaller uses oleophilic (oil-loving) polypropylene plastics. While it is true that the mechanism of oily particle removal is adsorption rather than gravity separation, this type of separator is still ineffective because of the extremely small size of a majority of particles (less than 5 micron in size). Therefore, if the oil/water separator effluent must achieve high levels of performance, neither gravity nor oleophilic adsorption type separators ought to be considered.

quired to transport the samples to a laboratory will change the composition of the sample, and thus the results.

Figure 34

American Petroleum Institutes Susceptibility to Separation Test (S.T.S. Number)

This test is an actual measurement of the separation rate possessed by rising particles. It permits the accurate determination of the required surface overflow rate of a separator to achieve a specific degree of oily wastewater treatment. It must be performed at the very site where the samples are taken. The time re-

1. Prepare apparatus as shown in Figure 34. Be sure the separator funnel is clean. Just before performing the S.T.S. test, rinse the funnel with detergent water to wet the interior surfaces. This prevents oil from clinging to the funnels wall. 2. Introduce thoroughly mixed (uniform) oily wastewater sample and fill separator funnel to top. 3. Wait two (2) minutes to disseminate initial turbulence (time with stopwatch). While oil particle separation is taking place, the funnel should be protected from temperature disturbances. Position the funnel in an area where there exists no wind, or nearby sources of heat. If the oily wastewater being sampled is at a temperature significantly different (say 10C) from ambient air, a towel or other type of insulation should be wrapped around the funnel. 4. Draw off and discard 50 cc of sample to waste the settleable solids. Reset timer to 0. 5. Wait five (5) minutes.

6. Draw 600 cc of sample into a clean sample container and send to the laboratory for oil analysis by solvent extraction, infrared spectroscopy, or other API (American Petroleum Institute) test method. 7. Oil particle separation velocity is calculated as follows: Vp =
H t

the emulsion must be broken through chemical addition. pH adjustment might also be evaluated for emulsion breaking. After the emulsion is broken, the particles are flocculated and thereby agglomerated to a size large enough for air particle attachment. The treatment, then, consists of a first stage DAF separator. Chemical feed is also provided. The determination of the proper chemicals to use is accomplished through jar tests. Additional laboratory testing is required to determine the presence of free oil and suspended solids. As before, the maximum surface overflow rate of the CorruFloc flocculator/DAF separator is 0.5 gpm/sq ft. If either 0.2% free oil and/or 0.1% suspended solids are present, a first stage gravity separator is required. Chemically emulsified oils may also be removed through adsorption media such as granular activated carbon.

where H = height in inches of 600 cc sample, and t = time in minutes If, for example, H = 6 inches, then Vp =
6 5

= 1.2 inches/minute, which converts to = 0.75 gpm/sq ft surface overflow rate, or = 1,080 GPD/sq ft surface overflow rate Should the foregoing laboratory test result show an oil concentration of 40 mg/L, this is the projected performance level of a separator operating at the surface overflow rate indicated. 8. Repeat steps #1 through #7 except wait for ten (10) minutes. Determine projected performance at this surface overflow rate (1/2 the surface overflow rate of the prior example). Repeat as necessary at additional wait times in order to establish the desired design surface overflow rate.

Treatment of Dissolved Oil

Should dissolved oil be present in the oily wastewater in sufficient quantities to warrant removal, the choice of equipment is between granular activated carbon absorption contactors, biological treatment, or air stripping. The most cost-effective removal method depends on the particular dissolved oil(s) present, the concentration of the dissolved oils, & the size of the treatment application. Generally, the lower the concentration of dissolved oil, the less biodegradable the oil, and the lower the flow rate, the more activated carbon treatment is indicated. Conversely, the higher the concentration, the more biodegradable the oil, and the higher the flow rate, the more biological treatment is indicated. In some applications, first stage biological oxidation followed by second stage activated carbon absorption is the most cost-effective solution. In all instances, laboratory testing is necessary prior to the design of a dissolved oil removal system.

Treatment of Mechanically Emulsified Oil

This type of oily contaminant is relatively easy to remove in a DAF separator. If the emulsified oil concentration is less than 2,000 mg/L, it may be removed at a surface overflow rate of 0.5 gpm/sq ft (corresponds to 720 GPD/sq ft). Air bubbles attach to the emulsified oil particles imparting an apparent density of about 0.8 gm/cc. The resulting air-oil particle exhibits a rapid rate of rise. The limiting factor controlling liquid flow in maintaining laminar flow conditions. At a surface overflow rate of 0.5 gpm/sq ft, the PuriSep DAF separator is operating at its maximum hydraulic rate. If free oil is present at a concentration of 0.2% or more, or if suspended solids are present at a concentration of 0.1% or more, removal of these other particles in a first stage gravity separator is indicated. Mechanically emulsified oil may also be removed by oleophilic adsorption technology.

Retrofitting - Upgrading Existing Inadequate Oil/Water Separators

Since inclined plate modules can be built to accommodate almost any vessel, existing inadequate oil/water separators and clarifiers can usually be converted into high performance units. The vessel itself must be structurally sound as a starting point. Then adequate access to the vessel must be provided if not already present.

Treatment of Chemically Emulsified Oil

These emulsions consist of oil particles less than 1 micron in size. In order to remove these tiny particles,

sales literature copious endorsements of the principles of Stokes Law, laminar flow, and low Reynolds Numbers. Once the oleophilic filter becomes saturated with oil and/or plugged with solids, it is somewhat common practice to remove this element without replacing it. Subsequent performance is then inadequate because of a gross insufficiency of plate separation area. For good measure, the plates may be inclined but the corrugations are horizontal resulting in a module partially plugged with solids.

Figure 35

Figure 35 shows a somewhat typical baffled clarifier. It can be upgraded by: 1. Removing existing baffles 2. Adding inlet and outlet piping 3. Adding sludge collection and withdrawal system 4. Adding oil withdrawal system 5. Adding inclined plate module The retrofitted clarifier is shown in Figure 36.
Figure 37

Inserting module components through the access manway may retrofit this type of separator. See Figure 38.

Figure 36

Many thousands of phony gravity type oil/water separators have been sold of the type shown in Figure 37. These units actually accomplish most of their oil removal through polypropylene mesh adsorption technology rather than gravity separation notwithstanding
Figure 38

Adding a second module as shown in Figure 39 can actually further modify this type of separator.

in the water to be treated. A secondary feature of the separator is to separate and temporarily store sand, grit and other settleable materials that may be washed into the drainage system. The fuels and oils separated in the separator will form a layer on the top surface. An oil withdrawal pipe may be used to remove the separated oil on a periodic basis. If supplied with your unit, an adjustable floating oil skimmer automatically removes floating oil from the separator compartment and discharges it into an adjacent waste oil storage tank or compartment. In the event of a known spill the separator and the waste oil collection tank, if provided, should be checked immediately to determine their unused capacity. The oil may be removed by contracting with a licensed disposal service company. The settled solids should be removed periodically. The sludge can be removed in the same manner as the oil, namely by hiring a disposal service company. The disposal of sludge is regulated by CFR. Other than for the periodic removal of oils and sludges in the manner described, there is no other routine maintenance requirements. The plates used in the separator exhibit self-cleaning properties thus routine spray wash cleaning of the plates is unnecessary. During the course of routine operation, the inclined corrugated plate separator will separate sludge, which will settle to the bottom and oil (or fuels) which will rise to the top. The separated oils will continue to collect and the oil layer will increase in thickness unless pumped out or discharged by a floating oil skimmer to an adjacent separated oil storage tank or compartment. As the oil level within this compartment continues to rise, it will eventually fill the separator vessel and/or the waste oil storage tank/compartment. As a matter of routine practice, the separated oil and accumulated sludge should be removed at least once yearly. Of course, if the separated oil storage tank fills more frequently it will have to be emptied more often. The separator should be inspected weekly during the wet season and after every major stormwater event. It is extremely important to have a specific individual responsible for the oil/water separator. This person should also keep a logbook to show the time and date of inspections, sludge removal, oil removal, and all other associated activities.

Figure 39

Coalescers
Many oil/water separator manufacturers frequently use the term coalescer in the description of their product. This is but a popular buzzword in the marketplace as it is invariably used incorrectly. Various manufacturers use oleophilic polypropylene mesh material and tubes to adsorb oily particles. Still others use polypropylene plates to adsorb oily particles. Not to be outdone, a few manufacturers even employ non-oleophilic plastics (i.e., PVC) while ironically claiming the misguided benefits associated with the use of this material. In every such instance the manufacturer incorrectly uses the term coalescer in describing its product because of the extremely favorable impression this word has taken on in the representation of particle/liquid separation. If the truth be known, every time a manufacturer uses this term it should be perceived as a red flag and a caution against the use of the coalescer product represented.

Sludge Removal Considerations

Sludge concentration in the sludge holding compartment will generally range from 1% to 5% settled solids by weight. It is to be remembered that the PuriSep Oil/Water Separator is primarily an oil-removing device. Its sludge holding capacity is limited. Accordingly, a sludge removal requirement is to waste or remove sludge at a rate that matches, or slightly exceeds, the rate of sludge accumulation. Accumulated sludge may not be stored in the sludge holding compartment. Most sludges, and virtually every chemical type sludge, will harden on storage. Many oil/water separators have become inoperative because sludge removal was not routinely practiced.

Flow Bypassing
If an oil/water separator module is improperly installed, flow can bypass around the sides, under the bottom, and even over the top. In each such instance a loss of efficiency will occur which could result in an unacceptable effluent. The use of tight fitting modules or flow bypass prevention baffles will prevent bypassing around the sides. The use of sludge baffles significantly reduces bypass under the module. And by extending the height of the modules to the maximum weir head elevation, flow bypassing over the top module can be eliminated. Figure 40 illustrates these requirements.

Maintenance
The principal feature of the stormwater separator is to separate and temporarily store various petroleum hydrocarbons, oil/fuels, and lubricants that may be contained

stant and if the specific gravity of the entrained oil never changed, a fixed oil weir would work satisfactory. Since flow rates and specific gravities frequently change, a fixed oil weir has to be carefully adjusted and frequently monitored to prevent malfunction. The operation of an oil/water separator with fixed oil and water weirs is hydraulically identical to a U-tube. Since separated oil is lighter than water, a greater tube length is necessary to exactly balance the shorter length of water. As the oil/water separator goes into operation, a weir head develops which, in turn, pushes the oil column upwards by the exact distance of the weir head. In order to understand the rather serious consequences of changed operating conditions, the following examples are examined.

Figure 40

The Francis Formula can determine the weir head: Q where Q Q Q g = 0.415 LH 3/2 2g = Cubic feet of flow per second = Weir length in feet = Weir head in feet = 32.17 ft/sec2
H0 H1 H2 = height from EP to water overflow weir = height from EP to weir head = height from EP to oil weir = oil thickness Figure 41

If a separator module becomes plugged bypassing will increase, as water will follow the path of least resistance. Water overflowing the top of a module could indicate a plugged module. It could also indicate that the effluent weir is set at too low an elevation. In either such case the quality of the effluent rapidly disappears as flow bypassing becomes rather nominal. In other words, every effort should be made to minimize the occurrence of flow bypassing.

Example #1 weir head

= 1.5 = water weir + 2 = 0.9 = (H2)(oil sp gr) = H1 = H2 (1) (2) (3)

oil weir oil sp gr (H1)(water sp gr) H0 + 1.5 H0 + 2.0 (H0 + 1.5)(1.0) H0 + 1.5 0.1H0 H0 H1= H2

substituting equations (2) and (3) in equation (1) = (H0 + 2.0)(0.90) (1) = 0.9 H0 + 1.8 = 0.3 = 3.0 4.5 (2) = 5.0 (3) This is the separated oil thickness when weir difference is 2.0

Fixed Oil Weirs - Use Only With Extreme Caution

More often than not water will flow over a fixed oil weir and fill the separated oil storage compartment or dedicated vessel. Their use in the marketplace has been consistently unsatisfactory as measured by the number of times that oil storage tanks have had to be pumped or, in the alternative, the number of times that separated oil has discharged with the treated water. If the rate of flow through an oil/water separator were con-

Example #2 If the oil weir were lowered by 0.25, the weir difference becomes 1.75 and equations (2) and (3) become:

definitely prevent significant projected plate separation area from being used and may even flow under the oil dam into the effluent. From the above analyses one might conclude that by raising the oil weir, water could be prevented from overflowing the oil weir. This happens to be true but an even worse consequence can arise. If the oil weir is raised by 1 full inch it will be 3 above the water weir and 0.5 inches above the maximum weir head of 2.5 inches. This weir head previously resulted in water overflowing the oil weir Now lets assume an oil specific gravity of 0.85 and a weir head of 2.5. The calculations on oil thickness become: H0 + 2.5 H0 + 3.0 (H0 + 2.5 (1.0) 15 H0 H0 H1 H2 = H1 = H2 = (H0 + 3)(0.85) = 0.05 = 0.33 = 2.83 (2) = 3.33 (3) Oil thickness when weir difference is 3.0 (1)

H0 + 1.5 H0 + 1.75 (H0 + 1.5)(1.0) H0 H1 H2

= H1 = H2 = 0.75 = 2.25

(2) (3)

= (H0 + 1.75)(0.90) (1) (2)

= 2.50 (3) Oil thickness when weir difference is 1.75

Note that a difference of only 0.25 in the oil weir results in a 2.50 difference in oil thickness.
Example #3 If the oil weir were raised by 0.25 rather than lowered as in Example #2, equations (2) and (3) become:

H0 + 1.5 H0 +2.25 (H0 + 1.5)(1.0) H0 H1 H2

= H1 = H2 = (H0 + 2.25)(0.9) = 5.25 = 6.75

(2) (3) (1) (2)

At a weir head of 0.75, the calcs are: H0 + 0.75 H0 + 3.0 (H0 + 0.75)(1.0) 0.15 H0 H0 H1 H2 = H1 = H2 = (H0 + 3.0)(0.85) = 1.80 = 12.0 = 12.75 (2) = 15.0 (3) Oil thickness when weir difference is 3.0 (1)

= 7.50 (3) Oil thickness when weir difference is 2.25

A 0.5 adjustment in the oil weir reflected in Examples #2 and #3 results in a total difference in oil thickness of 7.50 - 2.50 or 5.00. This difference is quite reasonable and should not cause any operational problem. Two other variables exist which need to be examined. These are oil specific gravity and weir head. If the oil specific gravity charged from 0.90 to 0.85, at the three weir differences of 1.75, 2.0, and 2.25 the oil thickness becomes 1.67, 2.20, and 2.66 respectively. The oil specific gravity could also increase. If it increased from 0.90 to 0.95, at the three weir differences of 1.75, 2.0, and 2.25, the oil thickness becomes 1.00, 5.00, and 7.50, respectively. In addition to changes in the oil specific gravity, rates of flow to the oil/water separator can also change. These changes can be disastrous. The initial example has a weir head of 1.5. This can easily change by 0.75 resulting in possible weir heads of 0.75 to 2.25. With an oil specific gravity of 0.9 and a weir difference of 2.0, the oil thickness becomes 12.5 and less than 0, respectively. At oil specific gravities of 0.85 and 0.95, respectively, the oil thickness at a 0.75 weir head are 8.33 and 25.0, respectively, and at a 2.25 weir head, the oil thickness is again less than 0 in both cases. At this condition water will overflow the oil weir and flood the separated oil storage tank or compartment. On the other hand an oil thickness of 25.0 will

Now, however, at an oil specific gravity of 0.95, at the two weir heads of 2.5 and 0.75, the oil thickness becomes 10 and 45.0, respectively. In summary, low flows and higher specific gravities can translate into extremely thick oil layers which diminish oil/water separator projected area and increase the likelihood of discharging under the oil dam and into the effluent. High flows, even if short term, can cause water to overflow the oil weir and flood the separated oil storage tank or compartment. Coupled with these operational variables, even small vertical adjustments in the oil weir results in magnified differences in the oil thickness. It is not surprising, then, that fixed oil weirs will tend to fail frequently because of variations in flow and oil specific gravity. A skimming device that works with complete reliability is a floating oil skimmer because: 1. Variations in flow rates (weir heads) cannot adversely influence performance because the

floating feature removes this variable. The associated oil weir then rises and falls as the weir head changes. 2. In a well designed floating oil skimmer, the pontoons or floats rest partly in water and partly in separated oil. As the oil layer increases in thickness, the skimmer sinks slightly because the buoyancy of oil is less than water. The selfcompensating feature of a well designed floating oil skimmer therefore dampens the variations in oil thickness due to changes in oil specific gravity. If reliable gravity oil skimming is a design necessity, a floating oil skimmer is the preferred device over a fixed oil weir. A floating oil skimmer may also be deployed as a pump suction inlet thereby permitting a pumped withdrawal of separated oil from the surface of a tank of body of water.

Speaking of test results, be careful to note that vendor sponsored testing invariably fails to show the particle size of the oil droplets removed and instead focuses attention on the oil concentrations of inlet and outlet samples. The entire body of particle separation technology is based upon the capacity to remove discrete particles with specific separation rates. The consideration of concentrations alone is clearly insufficient to show separator performance in the absence of associated data on particle sizes. Chapters III and V of the API (American Petroleum Institute, the prestigious trade association of the petroleum industry) manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes as well as API Bulletin No. 1630 are frequently cited as referenced documents in specifications. These citations are incorrect. The classical API Basin is designed to remove all oil particles 150 micron in size and larger whereas plate separators are generally designed to remove all oil particles 60 micron in size. The efficiency of the plate separator is over six times greater than the API Basin. Bulletin No. 1630 merely acknowledges the splendid performance of plate separators generally. It is completely lacking in design information. Fictitious gravity separators and manufacturer misrepresentations abound in todays oil/water separator marketplace. 1. One manufacturer uses polypropylene plates and fraudulently claims both sides of each plate in arriving at the total projected plate separation area. 2. The same company incorrectly deploys two and three separator modules in series flow in order to provide the required sq ft of projected or effective separation area. 3. Another successful manufacturer uses vertical plates with inclined ribs. Vertical plates do not project any plate separation area. 4. Another manufacturer also uses vertical plates but with inclined corrugations. 5. Many manufacturers employ polypropylene mesh adsorbers (called coalescers) to compensate for the deficiency of plate separation area. One such manufacturer adds the surface area of the polypropylene filaments in the adsorber to the area of the plates in arriving at the total projected plate separation area. 6. Other manufacturers simply misrepresent the square feet of projected plate separation area per cubic foot of media supplied. For example, at a plate spacing of inch at an inclination angle of 55, the projected plate separation area calculates out at 9.17 sq ft/cubic foot of media. For other plate spacings and inclination angles see table on page.

Marketplace Misrepresentation
True oil/water separators can be obtained from several suppliers who compete on the basis of equal square feet of effective separation area. Unfortunately, in the last few years, several manufacturers have introduced phony oil/water separators with particular success in the US Government sector. The separators are quite similar in design in that: 1. They use only about 1/10th the required square feet of separation area as determined by basic clarifier hydraulics. 2. The corrugated plates used are oriented axially to the flow rather than transversely. The separated oil then has to tumble upwards from corrugation to corrugation as it migrates to the surface rather than sliding up a smooth trough formed by each corrugation. 3. The use of a coalescer pack to polish the effluent. These packs are made from closely woven polypropylene (oleophilic or oil loving) netting material, several layers thick. Initially, small suspended solids and entrained oil particles are mostly removed from the flow stream. After a short while, the coalescer pack or element becomes both plugged with suspended solids and saturated with absorbed oil in the same manner as the now obsolete ink blotter would soak up ink. It is quite possible that the proffered phony separator will initially pass the applicable performance tests. The coalescer pack will thereafter plug requiring removal and replacement at considerable cost not to mention the associated requirement to properly dispose of the spent coalescer pack. True separators are mostly maintenance free (other than oil and sludge removal on a periodic basis) devices which last some twenty years plus.

7. Several manufacturers incorrectly claim compliance with the API. These manufacturers are engaging in a marketing ploy in an effort to apply API credibility to their product line through name association. The API has not certified a single manufacturer as complying with its design criteria. This may easily be verified by contacting the API. The above misrepresentations unfortunately inundate the oil/water separator marketplace. Since this equipment is generally sold on the basis of surface area (projected plate separation) considerations, there exists an ever present temptation to overstate a products true design. Details of the above designs may be found in WSE Publication 394.

7. Prohibit use of oleophilic materials to aid oil removal 8. Equip separator with sludge collection/sludge removal system 9. Require sq ft of area calculations to be certified by a licensed Professional Engineer 10. One (1) module only in flow path

Laboratory Testing
The WaterSmart Environmental laboratory is available to analyze samples for the purposes of determining settling velocities, conducting jar tests for flocculation or emulsion breaking, and selecting chemical feed dosages. Pilot plant testing is also available. All laboratory testing is provided on a no cost, no obligation basis. Pilot plant testing is available on a negotiated cost basis depending on complexity, duration, and location of pilot test site. The Application Data Sheet following identifies both raw water characteristics, and oil/water separation requirements In order to recommend the most cost-effective equipment for the application under consideration, it is extremely important to know the requested data. This is especially true when the flow stream contains a multiplicity of contaminants, only some of which need to be separated to satisfy removal requirements.

Recommended Specifications
The following specifications will insure that the performance requirements will be achieved on free oil removal applications: 1. Fiberglass material of construction for plates no substitutes will be considered 2. Corrugated plates 3. Cross flow hydraulic path 4. Minimum angle of inclination of 55 5. Minimum plate spacing of inch 6. Minimum surface overflow rate of 0.33 GPM/sq ft (475 GPD/sq ft)

Notes

Notes

Application Data Sheet

Application: Brief description of oil/water separator intended use:

Capacities: A. Design Flow Rate: B. Peak Flow Rate & Duration: C. Surface Overflow Rate: Raw Water Characteristics: A. Inlet Oil Concentration: B. Suspended Solids Concentration: C. Temperature of Liquid Flow: D. pH of Liquid Flow: Normal Normal Of Specific Gravity: Of Specific Gravity: Maximum Maximum Minimum Minimum

E. Oil Particle Distribution, % by Weight Oil Particle Size in Microns % Concentration by Weight

F. Concentration of Mechanically Emulsified Oil: G. Concentration of Chemically Emulsified Oil: H. Concentration of Dissolved Oil: Treated Water Requirements: (If NPDES Permit Applies, Attach Copy)

A. Preferred Material of Construction: B. Installation is

Steel Above Grade Yes

Concrete Below Grade No

C. Is Oil Storage Required? Capacity is D. Skimmer Required? E. Insulation Required? F. Immersion Heater(s) Required? G. Cover(s)? H. Access Platform(s)? I. Is Oil Transfer Required? J. Are Jar Tests or Other Laboratory Analyses Required? K. Are Pilot Plant Tests Indicated? No Cost Laboratory Evaluation: Send (freight prepaid) a two gallon sample of raw feed water along with a small quantity of special treatment chemicals, if any, to our Analytical Laboratory. A wide-mouth, non-breakable, and corrosion resistant (plastic) bottle is preferred. Do not send toxic or otherwise dangerous samples without proper identification of the hazardous waste materials. A sample has been will be will not be sent. Shipping date: via: gallons

Completed Laboratory Report should be sent to: Company: Address:

Attention:

Whose Phone Number is:

WaterSmart Environmental Local Representative: Notes: 1. The data provided on the Application Data Sheet is our primary source of design information. The more relevant this information, the faster and more accurate our laboratory work will be. Should we have questions concerning this application, our laboratory staff will contact you. 2. We would like to know a little about the process that generates the oil/water separator application. A process flow sheet would be ideal. We are not interested in receiving any information you regard as confidential or proprietary. 3. If EPA or State permit requirements are to be met, please advise limitations.

Flotation Separators
Application Data
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) is a process used to remove nearly neutral gravity particles from a flow stream. It does this by using microscopic air (or other gas) bubbles generated in a DAF module. These bubbles become attached to or occluded within the neutral gravity particles, which then float to the surface of the process vessel. Flotation plate separators have only recently become recognized as another special use of gravity separation technology. This phenomenon is somewhat difficult to understand in that all of the principles of gravity separation still apply regardless of the presence of the DAF process. The use of the DAF process without inclined plates generally results in splendid treatment. The additional use of inclined plates makes the basic process more affordable in a smaller space at higher levels of particle separation.

There are other reasons for apparent failures of the DAF process. In any design, there are only so many bubbles that are available for flotation utilization, namely the excess air saturated flotation flow stream. In the mining, paper & pulp, and chemical processing industries, the size and number of the neutral gravity particles to be removed by the DAF process have been well identified. Consequently, the amount of air generated in the DAF generation module matches or exceeds the air bubble requirements. Furthermore, these flow streams contain mostly neutral gravity particles thus permitting full use of the available gas bubbles. However, in other applications, the design of the DAF process can fall short for two main reasons. The use of the air-to-solids ratio, that is, the ratio of the pounds of air available in the DAF generation module divided by the pounds of the suspended solids to be removed, has been relied upon too heavily. The pounds of suspended solids are certainly a good indication of the amount of air that is required to float them to the surface. However, the size of the suspended particles is more determinative of the success of the DAF process than their concentration. If the neutral gravity particles are large, say from 60 microns to 400 microns, the gas bubbles will have little difficulty in finding and attaching to these particles en route to the surface of the liquid. However, if the neutral gravity particles are small, say from 10 microns to 40 microns, the gas bubbles are going to be far less effective in finding and floating these to the surface. Indeed, the air to solids ratio could be the same in both cases, but the relative success far different. The focus on the part of equipment manufacturers is generating dissolved air rather than on the generation and release of dissolved air. Getting air into solution is only half the answer. The other half is getting the excess dissolved air released. For example, a carbonated beverage doesnt become flat in 2 or 3 minutes, or even in 10. The release of supersaturated gas in a DAF process is no different. To accomplish good release of the excess air requires a good degree of turbulence in the DAF water distribution system. Without this turbulence, similar to shaking the carbonated beverage container, the so-called air available from a design standpoint simply is lost in the effluent discharge. Furthermore, in the design calculations that determine the amount of air available,

Although the DAF process has enjoyed wide success in mining, paper & pulp, and chemical processing industries, its overall performance in other areas and applications has not been as good. The DAF process is capable of excellent particle removal performance. To accomplish this high level of treatment requires an appreciation of its inherent limitations. If the neutral gravity particles are accompanied by a significant quantity of other particles, say 2,000 to 5,000 mg/L range (depending on separation velocities), they must be removed in a gravity type separator prior to the DAF separation system in order to achieve the removal efficiencies inherent to the DAF process. The reason for this kind of primary treatment is twofold. In the case of the other particles exhibiting rise rates, they indeed will rise to the surface of the vessel under the influence of DAF treatment. However, their utilization of the microscopic bubbles diminished the number of these bubbles available to lift the neutral gravity particles to the surface. Its strictly a matter of a numbers consideration. In the case of the other particles exhibiting settling rates, again its a non-intended utilization of the available bubbles. In addition, the settling rate of some of these particles is reduced because of air attachment resulting in neutral gravity particles that pass through the separator and thus contaminate the effluent.

to be discounted is that amount of air that is used to merely saturate the DAF flow stream. This air is permanently soluble in the DAF flow stream and cannot be released, even with extreme turbulence. Its only the excess air, or the supersaturated portion, which is available for release. The use of the entire stream pressurization, as is popular with many DAF suppliers can lead to poor results. The entire flow stream has to be saturated with air before it even becomes possible to supersaturate. And as indicated prior, most suppliers do not do a good job in releasing the supersaturated portion of the gas. This results in less air and consequently fewer gas bubbles to perform in the DAF process. When the entire flow stream is saturated and then supersaturated with air, it must all be pressurized. Upon release to atmospheric pressure, the entire stream must pass through a pressure release system. This subjects the entire flow to two successive conditions of particle shearing. The first is the pressure pump that creates the water pressure in the DAF flow. The second is the pressure release valve used to permit pressure relief to gravity conditions. In the shearing of these particles, their numbers are increased and their size reduced both somewhat dramatically. This phenomenon of particle shearing in full flow DAF pressurization is a factor that leads to poorer performance for DAF treatment than is otherwise achievable with this process. In summary, a comprehensive knowledge of the raw water stream is absolutely necessary for proper application of the DAF process. Additionally, the design of the DAF module is critical to the success of the process. If the particles are too small to be effectively removed by the DAF bubbles, then chemical feed and flocculation will be required for particle growth before air flotation is used.
Table XII Types of Particles Present Neutral Gravity Particles Larger Than 10 Microns Same As Above Except With Excess Scum Or Solids PuriSep Separation System

separation. Generally, this rate of separation is in the range of 0.75 inches/minute or greater. Should the flow stream vary in process treatment requirements, the above treatment flexibility may be considered.

Sludge Removal Considerations

As with all PuriSep Separators, separated sludge must be removed from the sludge holding compartment at a rate that matches, or slightly exceeds, the rate of sludge accumulation. All sludges have a tendency to harden on storage, and this phenomenon is especially true with chemical type sludges.

DAF Separator Selection

The PuriSep Flotation Separator product line has been designed to remove up to 2,000 mg/L neutral gravity particles of a size greater than 10 microns. This design will accommodate the simultaneous presence of up to 1,000 mg/L of suspended solids with settling rates less than 1 inch/minute and/or 2,000 mg/L of particles exhibiting rise rates in excess of 1 inch/minute. Should the concentration of these nonneutral gravity particles exceed the above limitations, they should first be removed in an appropriate separator prior to the DAF process. Should the size range of the neutral gravity particle fall generally less than 10 microns in size, chemical feed followed by flocculation is recommended before DAF removal. All Flotation Separators are sized at 0.5 gpm/sq ft surface overflow rate disregarding the recycle flow rates. So long as the flow stream under consideration meets the other considerations on the associated particle considerations, it may be applied without restriction.

Laboratory Testing
The WaterSmart Environmental laboratory is available to: Analyze samples for the purpose of determining separation rates, determining oil and other particle concentrations and specific gravities, selecting chemical feed dosages, and providing treatment recommendations with equipment sizing and budget pricing along with specification preparation.
WSE is also available to conduct pilot plant testing. All laboratory testing is provided on a no cost, no obligation basis. Pilot plant testing is available on a negotiated cost basis depending on complexity, duration, and location of pilot test site.

DAF Separator Combination 2-Stage Separator/DAF Separator

Combination 2-Stage CorruFloc Flocculator/ DAF Separator Same As Above Except Combination 3-Stage With Excess Scum Or Gravity Separator/ Solids Flocculator/DAF Separator Neutral Gravity Particles Smaller Than 10 Microns

The Application Data Sheet following identifies both Raw water characteristics, and Particle separation requirements. In order to recommend the most cost-effective equipment for the application under consideration, it is extremely important to know the requested data. This is especially true when the flow stream contains a multiplicity of contaminants, only some of which need to be separated to satisfy removal requirements.

Process Variations
All PuriSep DAF Separators behave as gravity separators whenever the DAF system is not in use. It will then separate those particles that exhibit rise and/ or settling rates sufficiently fast to permit simple gravity

Application Data Sheet

Application: Brief description of flotation separator intended use:

Capacities: D. Design Flow Rate: E. Peak Flow Rate & Duration: F. Surface Overflow Rate: Raw Water Characteristics: A. Suspended Solids Concentration: B. Additional Description of Particles Present C. Temperature of Liquid Flow: D. pH of Liquid Flow: Normal Normal Maximum Maximum Minimum Minimum Of Specific Gravity:

E. Oil Particle Distribution, % by Weight F. Concentration of Mechanically Emulsified Oil: G. Concentration of Chemically Emulsified Oil: H. Concentration of Dissolved Oil: Disposal method of float material:

Is chemical flocculation required?

Yes

No

Unknown

Treated Water Requirements: (If NPDES Permit Applies, Attach Copy)

Continued on the next page

L. Preferred Material of Construction: M. Installation is

Steel Above Grade Yes

Concrete Below Grade No

N. Is Flotation/Scum Storage Required? Capacity: O. Float/Scum Transfer Required? P. Insulation Required? Q. Immersion Heater(s) Required? R. Cover(s)? S. Access Platform(s)? T. Are Jar Tests or Other Laboratory Analyses Required? U. Are Pilot Plant Tests Indicated? No Cost Laboratory Evaluation: Send (freight prepaid) a two gallon sample of raw feed water along with a small quantity of special treatment chemicals, if any, to our Analytical Laboratory. A wide-mouth, non-breakable, and corrosion resistant (plastic) bottle is preferred. Do not send toxic or otherwise dangerous samples without proper identification of the hazardous waste materials. A sample has been will be will not be sent. Shipping date: via:

Completed Laboratory Report should be sent to: Company: Address:

Attention:

Whose Phone Number is:

WaterSmart Environmental Local Representative: Notes: 4. The data provided on the Application Data Sheet is our primary source of design information. The more relevant this information, the faster and more accurate our laboratory work will be. Should we have questions concerning this application, our laboratory staff will contact you. 5. We would like to know a little about the process that generates the oil/water separator application. A process flow sheet would be ideal. We are not interested in receiving any information you regard as confidential or proprietary. 6. If EPA or State permit requirements are to be met, please advise limitations.

Request Additional Information

No.
191 194

Thank you for your interest in our treatment technologies. To request additional literature simply photocopy this page, mark desired WSE Publication selections, and then mail or fax to WSE with your return address. You may also contact us by phone or email with your request, or visit our webpage. We look forward to helping you find cost-effective and practical answers to your water and wastewater treatment

Title
Standard Conditions of Sale Equipment Maintenance Wastewater Treatment: Commercial Yards, Garages, and Repair Facilities AquaRound IV Car/Truck Wastewater Treatment and Water Reuse System ContamAway II Plus Mini Series Capabilities Bulletin Rental and Lease Agreement Stormwater Runoff and Washdown Treatment: Automotive Dealership/Service Stations Airport Deicing Fluid Treatment and Recovery System SkimAway Floating Oil Skimmer RainDrain Plus Perimeter Trench Dual Media Filtration System + Phosphorus Removal Silica Contamination Removal from Spent Fuel Pools and Refueling Water Storage Tanks at Nuclear PWR Power Generation Plants A Historical Review of Oil/ Water Separator Designs PuriSep Differential Gravity Separators Stormwater Runoff and Washdown Treatment: Automotive Wrecking/Salvage

No.
498 593 594

Title
RipTide Pulse Blender/Static Mixer The Removal of PCBs From Aqueous Waste Streams Ansorb Adsorbent for Arsenic, Hexavalent Chromium, and Selenium Removal Take a New Look at the RBS Process PuriQuad Physical/Chemical Treatment Plant Advanced Aqueous Waste Treatment Concepts OrganoSorb The Biological Approach To The Rotating Disc Process Quality Assurance Program Plan DeOiler Coalescing Filter Cartridge Design Manual and Tutorial ContamAway II Plus Aqueous Waste Treatment and Water Recycling System Plate Separation - Budding Conventional Technology? Fundamentals of Water and Wastewater Treatment ContamAway I High Performance Aqueous Waste Treatment System ContamAway II High Performance Aqueous Waste Treatment System

No.
995 996

Title
OPCT - Optimized Physical/Chemical Treatment Schedule of Typical Performance Results: Challenge Oil/Water Separation Testing ABT - Aerobic Biological Treatment Process Mob-to-Demob High Performance Aqueous Waste Treatment System AquaRound II Laundromat Wastewater Treatment and Water Recycling System FilterFresh Potable Water Production Plant ContamAway II Plus Mini Series with Spot Free Rinse AquaRound III Laundry Wastewater Treatment and Water Recycling System EXPRESS Simultaneous Ground and Groundwater Remediation Cost-Effective Energy Savings UltraPaq Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants Selecting an Energy Management System and Contractor OAT - Optimized Anaerobic Treatment Process RainDrain Perimeter Trench Dual Media Filtration System

195

998 1094

196 198 291 294

595 598 693 694 695 791 794 796 894

1194

1195 1196 1294

295

296 298

1495

380

895 898 993

1595 1695 1795

394 395 494

1895 2195

994

WaterSmart Environmental, Inc.

Post Office Box 26346 6 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66225-6346 6 913.897.2727 6 fax 897.1902 H2Osmart@ix.netcom.com 6 www.watersmart.com

Post Office Box 26346 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66225-6346 913.897.2727 6 fax 897.1902 H2Osmart@ix.netcom.com www.watersmart.com

5M 3/99 Printed in USA

1999 WaterSmart Environmental, Inc.