Agenda

"
" " "
"

Technology

Re'\dew0r

What are M BBR and IFA,S'? eva Iuatio n phase - wh'y co nsider and

Process a lternatives choose M BBR

IFA,S'?
what have w'e learned'?

Design p hase ~ 'i rnpo rta nt co nslderatlons Operations phaseiQuest](]riS

April7, 2011 I

What is MBBR and IFAS?

M BBR - Moving Bed Biofll rn Reactor • ,A. fixed-f Iml blo logica I process tech no logy that
uses free-moving biofllm IFA.S+Integrated Fixed FHm

,A,ct'i va ted SIud ee 0.1

'•..'
A:", ,."1hvb rld ...' "

te Fh' n O··IODU th at b':f' . a--!I;...; .. . _'I_'I

combinesthe blofllrn
treatment of a Ml BBR with

carrier mec la wlthin the bioreactor

d-

- ~,-

k..

conventio nail activated

~~ - ore."'·" svsternI 11,.]1, ~rd b,'~ '1 l,]I ~ U" ,]I ,.]I

April7, 2011

MBBR and I.FAS

MBBR
" EffLLJ ErN1

I FA,S

SWDGE

Apri17,2011

-e.. "',' .., M DVll.nlg-' S' d M e d- la

.. ,I. ,'

I ... ' .

".....:

ii

.,

ii

Hsadworks Blo, Inc.

I. K:ruger Inc.

Entex Technologies, Inc.

~~~------------------------------------------~I ~A~p-ri-17-'-20-1-1~1------

M2T Technologies, Inc.

Media Retention

April7, 2011

Fixed Media Types

I.

'.

.,
..... '

•,

- ....
~
,"

!
~

., "'

.~

.\0
·oJ

, _.

, _..- »

}
(

l'

..

~
I"

.,

IJ

,'"'
,

-.~
.. ,

••
'.

Iii- ~. '-:-1 ..... ;.

;/
.. I

)'{I

,-,

Brentwood I ndustrles
Entex Technologies ~Inc.

MBBRs
~FflUENIT

• Te rti a r"l nit rif cati

• ROI Ul OJ rI~' to'h'~ 0
1

f lite r

• Tl ght foot DI rl nt

April7, 2011

MBBR at Moorhead}'
•
• 6 MG'D deslen flow 0
1

MN

Hrst MBBR 'in North America, cornmisslonlngln ,Z003

Tertiarv nitrification
. . c:l ~ . - .'_ .'

to ,4,rng/L N H3-N
c:l. - . -. .'_
rll [

W'vastewvatertern I I p·.'_... .. erature: 1" Z-!)] . D .- .'_ .- .'_

't-Oll
.•-

Z-Z-ij] C
l .

April7, 2011 I

Mloorhead
., Reactor:

MIBBR Design Features

• Media retention screens
Flat wedgewlre - ,Aiir knife

13S".x SO" x 10" SWDI

- Coarse bubble a'i'r - 30 percent media filii

APli17, 2011

Moorhead MBBR Treatment Efficiency

iIiIi

I
~

II!!!

•
ill

•
iii
• til

•
Ii II !!!

III

Ni

ill

:ill!

.II

..
7

...

jj

d'
;i

Ii :tJ1if'm - .

~NLIi

ApJi17,2011

IFAS

Apri17,2011

Evaluation of IFAS-what consideration?

~ ""

are the typical drivers for

R".

'e'"

c·t r'~'o':' f t
,

".

,-'

Di~lVcd

• Capacitvlncrease
• New/t'ig'hter permit requirements
N' ,
II,

'f

C)flY.Qc:n inl Lon;1 ~:=hU'id ,SC!'i.ii9a BoltOm

W~llef!i;,

._».

itr 'I"f"~ I
I

1f"'''''''Ii IIL,a ,·11 I

t'l'l 0:-

n ~y' "'3i iF' iF '.' ILl in ~~ ","" a II II 0:- IIi] ~ III

,.J a,)

if D.enr"'t rl]" 'llCert"IIOI~

11;..,;, -

• Site co n ~,t- d 'iul nts -. u, -u

U I;]!, - F'~

U I, - ;]!

• Pla nts su bject to high plea k. flow and biomass washout

April7, 2011

Advantages
• ln . Co' r-'e'~
.: 0:;' ,·-UJ.·-

of IIFAS
',,-'I"

·e····· b d
-,

'0'"

m' '"

'~o:;' 0:;' 'w UJJ.··-· .... :. 'I"

t h·'0' ,.. u ,·t n". Co' r'-'e'~ .

,- '-,''I" .:

,·-UJ 0:;' 'I"

n". 0 Io·"'I'~d "t 0"'1 'e""C" '0"'1n'. d u r'-\l D' '~ ]"
1 .-·U -, '-,-' 0:;' JI,._. ~.-' -,

cia riflers
.. "

n'.t 'I" n Jab,h·' 'I" or h··' e ,·a t e·····I p.' .. e ra t u re,- ,j e ,. ,- rn.... ,- a" . I
M'...... ,·.:..' a ai
''':ii ''':ii

e'\}' J'1J,·"

e't e····· '- ',' m··" S<··R-" T'

''':ii oro" a b-I-II

od f t fo'.r- Co' 0"1 d

. ,._11 " :-1 .

.. G rowtr th

n tr e me dlI a res p 0 nc s to svste ml nee d S .. .. th dt t

.. Not so different fro rn conventiona II reatment t

.. lea n be idea ~fo r retrofits

April7, 2011

Disadvantages of I FAS
., "New" - or at least unfam'il'iar- technology

• Is not less costlythan

•

conventionaltreatrnent

Potential higher energv use and cost than conventional

- Higher DO concentration
M ixing energy' req u ired (colarse bu bble tvpica II)

April7, 2011

Conventional

Activated Sludge

~~-----------------------------------------------------U~-----------------------------------------------------,Ur--~---------------------------------------------------

lr
ill J[l

'H

+-====

"" ~ v'

......... 8io:f\e.i'II(~1I'

-(

h~lIri'ffiel'

Apri17,2011

1mpacts of IFAS

,~ +-~-------------------------------------------------------------------

.
~ ,jg; ~
";wi
iI'l!
,~

-~~~ ~ ,~~ T-------~----------------------------------------~~------------~~

~~
..,..,

~ ~~r---------------------------------------------------------------~' .,.
~~

!I'I!" '1iJ

'-Il1I!k"~'Jlit~(!o (Sll'~~ r i!!f~uht!d}

- - maOO"~t:uJ'(!ir' (~/lrAS}
-Cili3lfirfler

,~

Apri17,2011

Simplified IFASDesign Approach for Retrofitting a WWTP for Nitrification

1.
2.

Determl ne a llowa ble M LSS'i n bioreactors based on cia rifler ca pacitv,

Assu me a II nitrification

occu rs on the media d u rl ng cold tern peratu res,

3"

Select a design nitrification rate (g NH3-N/d/m2) based on expected operating 0'0 concentration and COD' loadingfrom batch or pi lot testing or manufacturer literature, D'etenmiine the tota I volume of media required based on 'the known protected surface area per unit volume of 'the carriers, up to a 65'% maxi Iml u Iml 'fii [I [I
co,

4"

April7, 2011

Case Study 1-12.4

p..!aII meter r·!aII

MGD Design
30111g!L

TSS
TN ~May - Oct} Design temp

30111g/L
~I694 ppd

II ~8.0 rng/L - 6.2 mg/L)

11 deg C January {nitrification}
16 deg C May (denitrification}
p..!aII m,ete'r ra

ce nve·ntED

n·!aIII

Capital Cost

$22.2 M

$21.5 M
$3S0~OOO

Annual O&.M
Cost lO-year lifecycle cost $27 M

$26 M

~.
'\iAIIR

April7, 2011

Case
I:)U U

Study
3U

2 - 0..77 MGD Design

rng/L

---------------

P,ara m ete'r

V.abJl,e'
-----

TIS
TN

301ng/L
29 ppd {.4.5 rng!L}

Capital Cost

$3.5 M
S115~OOO SS.4

Annual O&M
Cost
20-vear life,.

54.8 M

rvl

cycle cost 2010 dotters

April7, 2011

Case Study 3 - 6.8 MGD Design

BOD 30 rng/L
-------,

TSS TN

30111g/L 201 Pilei {3.5 111g!L} 11 deg C

Design temp

I P,a r,a meter

Capital Cost Anl1ual O&.M Cost
.2010 dolkus

I C'D nventiD n,alr'

II

IFAS

S48 M

--

N/A

N/A

April7, 2011

Design Considerations
., Selection of media tvpe/svstern
"- . "._ "._. ~. ...._ -. .' . -]' . .'-. '. ." ]!' . .: . - .'_

•
•

Aeratio n systems
COl nf

g'uratl

0 n of

rea cto rs

• Media migration
• Design DO concentration

April7, 2011

Selection of Media
., Design criteria
- Su rfac€ area loading rate'
I)

Protected su rfa ce a rea

F~ e rce nta ge 'I,~P E: n v'~ro n m enta IIcaln d itio n s

April7, 2011 I

Influent Screening
• Hne screening (ll4,~i] needed to p reve n"t
.-

.-

,'_

'~.

,'_

.-

Fou I'ing of media retention

screens Fiixed rnedia fou I'iing

Aeration Systems

April7, 2011 I

Reactor Configuration
INTERNAL IFtE(YCIE

. EfflUENT

WAS1ESlUDGE

Media p lacernent

tOI

maxi rnize efflciencv fa r nltriflcatio n

No media in first aerobic zone= ~'iig~ cal 01load No media in last aerobic zone - h'iigh 0 0 ln interna IIrecycle
1 1

April7, 2011

Media Migration

• ',,'

:fit n n ,M,fI""" fI"""~ ,_I g p 11.., II;...; ~ •

FO'-"'':]

',,"iii'C ~ ,,_111I;...;.-7 '\!I!C: ~

'0-

P·I·I't-'u'o t

,_,_I

m-""'"",,,,d,'1·1'' :]1' Fe,..-te__ ntl 0" Ill,-'e !,- Q ~_, ,,_I

Fii CF II- C !C: Fii C II I ,:.)''1;...; II I,.:]'

Fe

- Target maximum of about 100 ft/hr [30 m/hr]

~ ncludes forwa rd Q" ~A. and A.,AS

M~l~l require more reactor rnodificatlons tha n at first a ppa rent

April7, 2011

Operation

of an IFAS System -

Lessons Learned at the

T.Z. Osborne WIRF

~.
'\iAIIR

April7, 2011

Full-Scale IFAS Demonstration

at the TZ Osborne

WRF
• Team effort w'ith CDMI

and Hazen and Saw'jret • IFASc Pilot began

OIP erati ng:'i n A,p tl ~2008

April7, 2011

One of 12 aeration trains was isolated for the IFAS demonstration

APli17, 2011

3 of 6 aeration cells were co nve rted to IFAS

~: ••..sE'

E ""~' .~. RAS~

.'
.

Irt

FE
C~AS(AEIRJ

G
'.: 'W:·· .. .:.~! ....~.

A·e

April7, 2011

Modifications were made to co nve rt CAS to IFAS

\'VaII-top and cyl inder screens .. f ne

35°/6 media fill

bubble to coarse bubble diffusers

IFAS Basin Flow

AnlMIU

al ,Aver'age

2.,8 MGDI

.,,~======~======~~~======T=======~~======~~~ .,til"
Apri17,2011
I

Attached
was in the range of' 5 to 15 g TS I m2 s.ooo
4.500

Biomass

Observed biomass grolltlth on the media that supported nitrification

AA Flo'w',

---+-+

<
"V

4.000 3.500

28 mqd
.':
"

MM Flow', 3.5lngd

-+-------1 ~

• -

• E •

10

~.ooo
2.SOO
15

...E ...... •
"V

• -

:! :2JIOO
I: D 1ft

:!
10
I: D 1ft

l,5OO

I-

lS

1.JDI
~

o -+-----+-----+--L---+----+----+

0 .IIm-09

15 giliS/m~'

MiII"-tJ8.11m-08

Dec::-tJ8

MiII"-(J9

-0

-E

-F

April7, 2011

NH3-N Mass Profile at 3.5 MGD

• 10/0:1l/08 - I~M

700

~-~==~=====9F====9~=====F====9===~1

II'

l(VOSJOs) - I AS, 1011 S/08 - IFAS, '0/2 9iOIIFAS, ~ Con:!rel

..

,_
''I]i ~
IlI!!II!!!!!!!!!l

•
5fJO
~----r-----I

~~Dr ~ 10/01/08
- ~, a,

:> 1m;

tO/lOS/08 - COOlt fol

10/15/08- (on~rol

,_a,,
'

.........
Z,
l~

4tH) 300 2(lO

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~I--~--

%:

:2:
+---

~~~Ii'"._~.-

Average MLSS IFAS: 1,435 mg/L Control: 2,575 mg/L

I
e
E

CeU
Apli17,2011

Effect of COD Load, DO and Tem peratu re

w.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ wu+-------~r_--------------~

.,.
t

w. ~--------------------------~ wu

+---------~----------------~

om.

+-~~--..--"*""""----..'---~

!"-:ir---'~~~~___II

om. +-~~~~~~~.-~--~----~
0.0 1.0 3..0 4..0

o~======~========~~~==~

• o+---~--~--~--~--~--~--~ z.o
5..0 fill 7..0

DD..rnr./L

WD----------------------------~ wn+-----------------------~--~
~+-----------~--------~~--~ ~+---------~----~~--------~ WM+-~------~----------------~

••

WB+---~~--~----~~~------~
wnT-~~~~--~._--~----~~--~
D..01
-+--:':i:---r~

O~r;......-------_r___--------_r__--=----~
15 20

Apri17,2011

Flu II Sea Ie Pilot Nitrifieatio Conclusions

\I;

n Rate

The IFAStraln was able to nitrify all Influent nitrogen requlred for '" In ' '" Il-.. t h e fu II sea Ie u pgrard e Wit' h'" t h e existl'"ng treatment oasi'" ns.

R N'"itr "'f'" cati'"0 n Rate '" crea ses as: I''I In

1

COD
•

DO
1 1

Temperature

W ~fiiie n ltrificatlo rl rate 'iil crea ses as 0 0 'ii crea ses, 0 pe ratio n s [Il'iife l r n cvcle] COISts increase more rapidlvas a function of [)Ol compared '10 conventions IIBN R due tOI coa rse bu bble diffusers,

April7, 2011

Batch Testing
Configuration and Results

~.
'\iAIIR

April7, 2011

The pilot contained three distinct IFAS cells

_-_

= :1l'9 mg/ L, d)COD = 294 mg/L,

NI H:3
1

_'W.~- ~.
-,m.
-

N Ha

= 115 Fr-lgiL.

:Sa ~
~

r'bCODI

= j"ll

Illg/L,

N H:3 = :8, mg/ L,

rbCODI

= 25

mg/L

....

..I'IH:;!i --

- "'!Il'

111

rbCOD

= - :nl63

NIH:1I,i=- 7
rbCODI

~,

=- 4)6
NIH,~ - '.5 ~

NI H:~ = 10l. :5 rbCOD =4·

rhCODI

= - 2:m

I April7. 2011

Batch Testing Objectives

• EVe Iuate

nitrlflcatlo

perforrna

nee as e fu netic n of

dissolved oxygen concentration and F,)

• Determi ne potentia

'in distinct I FA,S cells (E

10 perati ng' strategies of IF,A,S

aeratio n energv
'il

systems 'that 0-1 ~:t- ···· rf 'I~ e ffe l i ve

F ,II;...;
,]I, ---

0 pt'~ mize
W" "::::i sr. " d :if'.

n the most

II;...;

'!j,i!-

April7, 2011

Minimal nitrifier activity in cell D -7 Cells E and F chosen for further testing
". rbCOD·N
"',

'"

,',,'

"12.~ ~

NlH3

= 119mg{L, ,/

r----....., f'bCOD

= 294

rbCOD:N
NHl =:I!5
rbeOD

f[l~L

= 711

mg/L/
'IH:~ =- 7

= 4.7
rbCOD:N

= 3.1
= ~_5
111 _~I

c
(ie,
-

.
_S

-- .•.•
.& _ 'V ~ ' -

f[l~L,

NH.~ = a rbeOD

= 2S

mgtL ,/ mgfL,

N1IH:::!i

"bCD'D' r_:.: ... ':.' .

scoo

=- 416

NIH:;J= - 7.S rbCOD =- 2:!1l

till FA;S P E!'rro rm a 11'C 'E!'dl E!'PE!'1il dl'E!'Mrt'0 MI e OD a Mid

NIH:~ loadling", tE!mp'E!'ra'tUlr'E!'", aMldl DO

April7, 2011

Batch Testing Apparatus

AIR:

AJR Iw.tEUE~

HAC~ SC100m

CQ~lROLlER

~'NLJET ~COMPR ssso R~ :,.. ,

.» _ ,.. ....
I ... . • .:.

:I~·~:r ..~_u ...It" _:..:::.:.... _-.

-1'-

fA,IR'

P','

'":' _'

OVEJRHEAD M~XER

cunrr
sou NOIID
AIFl:

AIR

HACH~LDO
PIi.OB'E

Batch Testing Procedure

1.

Spike a batch of I FA,Smedia suspended 'in secondary' eff uent with ,20+ rng/l, N H3-N

April7, 2011

Nitrification

performance as a function of DO Concentration

100

_"U

>= a::
'Iii
OJ CD

8060
40-

~;;;.

o~
OJ ~

Eta
a::Z Z---

~E

...

20

9
Cell F

10

DO (mg/L)
Ammonia Removal Rate'

,Cell E

April7, 2011

Cells E and F Performance:

why the difference?

E
Iwlk Liqu~d ====rbCDD: N 4.7
(MLSS)

'_',

F
==:rbCOD:N 3.1
B IJ I k, !liquid (MILSS)

*Suspected distribution of heterotrophs and autotro phs

April7, 2011 I

Nitrifier growth continues to follow Monod kinetics within a biofilm

(lOJ~

Maximum

Iiiiiiiiii

IiiiiiiiiIi

Iiiiiiiiiii

IiiiiiiiiIi

Iiiiiiiiiii

IiiiiiiiiiII

lliiiiiiiiill

lliiiiiiiil

iIiiiiiiiiI

iiiiiiiiiI

iiiiiiiiiI

iiIiiiiiiiiI

iiiiiiiiiI

IiiiiiiiiII

IiiiiiiiiIi

Iiiiiiiiii

IiiiiiiiiIi

Iiiiiiiiiii

IiiiiiiiiIi

IiiiiiiiiiII

lliiiiiiiiill

lliiiiiiiil

iiiiiiiiiI

iiiiiiiiiI

iiiiiiiiiiI

iiiiiiiiiI

Growth~

.. Ra isilg DO highe rthan 2 mg/L does oot

(!O.!H

res ult i1a

sun rICa nt increase in

nitriFl:3I:io n perfa rmance

{II"I .;:.r, "U~ ....

(lOJI.
(10

4-------.----_---....---

__ ----.
8
10

DO (mgfL)

Cells E and F Performance: why the difference?

Bulk rquid I~JMILSS)

BlIl~ Li~uid
(MLSS)

E
001<:
;;;j

,I------.......,~
.... A_.
:

j;ij

~ r==~ ............. -=:::::::="",.~ BklJk

Liquid
~r-~r_~---+---r--~

~r---r-~---+---r--~

Media. ~~ Surface

Media ~~ Surfa.ce

.... A_.

Bulk
Liquid

Apri17,2011

Operating cells E and F at different DO concentrations may resu It in the most efficient use of aeration energy

:I: Z

en

8-1!---6-+1----

.....
;

4-1!----

E= 2.5mgfL F= lmgfL

E= lmg/L F= 2.5 mgfL

.D.E

April7, 2011

Batch Testing Conclusions

'*

N itriflcatio n perfo rrna nee 'i n cells with lower COD:N H3 ratio

have a b areater response tOI chances 'in DO than cells arown 0 0

1 1

under higher COD:N H3 ratios,

'*

Media addition for 'increased nltrlflcatlon capacityis the most eff-ect'i've 'in cells with a low'COD:NIH3 ratio. '.r -,',:> ~'1~ 'I ~~._',', I FA'." 'S'·'svste l m''"I~ 01 II~0" W' "'f~o" increased flexibilitvwlth a peratlo na ~strategies co rnpa red tOI co nventiona ~ a ctivated sllu d g:e
oC' '~ ,_'I'

\Ii

April7, 2011

MBBR and IFAS - Summary

(I)

M BBR and IFA.S are both proven processes that can provide a high Ieve I of treatment 'i n a srna II footp ri nt Co rive rti n g:a COl nve nti 0 n a 1 a ctivated sl u d ge svste m tOI IFA,S ca n 'i ncrease the treatment ca pacltv withe ut new' ta n kage
Operational
'i ncl

(I)

(I)

and maintenance

considerations

must be

uded 'i n a life cvcle cost eva 1 uatlo n

(I)

N itrlflcatio n ca pacltv of Ml BBR a rlld IFA.S systems depends

0 0 concentration
1 1

on:

COOl loading - Ternnerature ",I ,rr" '"II~, "II.,

April7, 2011

Questions?

•
•

B'~ MlcC(]n nel ~: ~~

Jaso n Beck:

April7, 2011