Verification report PURROT

Transcription

1 PURROT Prepared by: Thorkild Q. Frandsen, ETA-Danmark Prepared for proposer: PurFil Aps Status: Final version Version:

2 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION NAME OF TECHNOLOGY NAME AND CONTACT OF PROPOSER NAME OF VERIFICATION BODY AND RESPONSIBLE OF VERIFICATION ORGANISATION OF VERIFICATION INCLUDING EXPERTS AND VERIFICATION PROCESS DEVIATIONS FROM THE SPECIFIC VERIFICATION PROTOCOL DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATION SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY INTENDED APPLICATION INCLUDING MATRIX, PURPOSE, AND TECHNICAL CONDITIONS VERIFICATION PARAMETERS DEFINITION EXISTING DATA ACCEPTED EXISTING DATA EVALUATION CALCULATION OF PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS EVALUATION OF TEST QUALITY VERIFICATION RESULTS VERIFIED PERFORMANCE CLAIMS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION QUALITY ASSURANCE REFERENCES APPENDIX 1 - TERMS AND DEFINITIONS APPENDIX 2 QUICK SCAN APPENDIX 3 PROPOSAL APPENDIX 4 SPECIFIC VERIFICATION PROTOCOL APPENDIX 5 AMENDMENT AND DEVIATION REPORT FOR VERIFICATION APPENDIX 6 TEST PLAN APPENDIX 7 TEST REPORT for PURROT Page 2 of 21

3 1. Introduction Environmental technology verification (ETV) is an independent assessment of the performance of a technology or a product for a specified application under defined conditions and quality assurance. This verification is performed under the EU ETV Pilot Programme. The verified technology is categorised under the EU ETV technology area Materials, waste and resources Name of technology The name of the verified technology is PURROT Name and contact of proposer The proposer is the Danish company PurFil Aps, Sverigesvej 16, DK-8700 Horsens, Denmark. Contact person of the proposer is Mr. Anders Tange. at@purfil.com. Telephone: Name of verification body and responsible of verification This verification is performed by ETA-Danmark A/S, Göteborg Plads 1, DK-2150 Nordhavn, Denmark. Website: Verification responsible is Peter Fritzel, ETA-Danmark. Phone: pf@etadanmark.dk Organisation of verification including experts and verification process The verification is conducted by ETA-Danmark in cooperation with Danish Centre for Verification of Climate and Environmental Technologies, DANETV. An internal and an external technical expert have provided reviews of the planning, conducting and reporting of the verification. The internal verification expert is: Thorkild Qvist Frandsen, DANETV, tqf@agrotech.dk. Phone: The external technical expert assigned to this verification and responsible for review of the specific verification protocol and the verification report is Bjørn Malmgren-Hansen, Danish Technological Institute. bmh@teknologisk.dk. Phone: The test and the verification tasks were conducted in two separate steps, as required by the EU ETV pilot programme (European Commission, 2014). Test activities were undertaken by AgroTech DANETV Test Centre (test body), whereas the verification activities were undertaken by ETA-Danmark (verification body). The relations between the organisations involved in the test and verification of PURROT are shown in Figure 1. for PURROT Page 3 of 21

4 EU ETV Pilot Programme Proposer (Technology supplier) PurFil Verification body ETA-Danmark External expert Test body AgroTech DANETV Test Centre Internal expert Figure 1. Organisation of the test and verification of PURROT The verification was planned and conducted to satisfy the requirements of the EU ETV Pilot programme as described in the EU ETV General Verification Protocol (European Commission, 2014) and ETA-Danmark s internal procedure. An overview of the verification process is given in Table 1. Table 1. Overview of the three main phases in the verification process and the corresponding documents for each phase. Phase Responsible Document 1. Preparation phase Verification body Quick scan report Contract with proposer Specific verification protocol 2. Testing phase Test body Test plan Test report 3. Verification phase Verification body Statement of Verification Quality assurance was undertaken using both internal and external experts. An overview of the quality assurance of the whole verification process is given in section 5. The Statement of Verification will be issued by the ETA-Danmark Verification body after completion of the verification process Deviations from the specific verification protocol According to the specific verification protocol for PURROT at least three batch tests had to be undertaken for each of the matrices included in the verification. However, for the matrix sow slurry only two batches were undertaken. The impact of the deviation on the verification process is described in section Two other deviations with limited impacts are also described in section for PURROT Page 4 of 21

5 2. Description of the technology and application 2.1. Summary description of the technology PURROT is intended for separation of dry matter from liquid wastes in order to facilitate a more effective utilisation of the dry matter for production of bioenergy. At the same time a more effective utilisation of the nutrients is achieved thereby reducing nutrient losses to the environment. Examples of such liquid wastes are slurry from livestock housing systems or digested biomass from biogas plants. It could also be liquid wastes from different types of industrial production. In the typical situation treatment of liquid wastes with PURROT results in two output fractions: 1) A solid fraction and 2) A liquid fraction. However, it is possible to change the settings of the PURROT technology so that three output fractions are produced as a result of the treatment. PURROT operates without addition of chemical additives like polymers and coagulants. PURROT operates automatically and no persons are needed to start and stop the separator. Figure 2 is a photo of PURROT. Figure 2. Photo of PURROT. In the container to the right of PURROT the solid output fraction is collected. In PURROT five separation principles are integrated into one machine. The five principles are described separately in the following. 1. A vertical curved sieve. The liquid waste is pumped to the inside wall of the filter screen. 2. A drum (rotor filter). The filter screen itself is placed around a drum. The screen has small holes (40 microns or less). The drum is rotating slowly (normally 1-5 rotations/minute). A spiral is fixed at the inside wall of the screen. The dryer and dryer sludge is moved from one end to the other end of the drum. A flow meter installed for PURROT Page 5 of 21

6 at the inlet is measuring the actual flow and the total amount of liquid waste treated. Data from the flow meter is used for controlling the speed of the pump for the liquid waste to be fed into the separator. Further, an ultrasound level-transmitter inside the drum is measuring the actual liquid level. Data from these measurements are used for regulating the speed of the inlet pump, so the desired level can be obtained inside the drum. 3. A horizontal vibration sieve. The drum is vibrating with an amplitude of 2 mm as fast as 60 Hz (3000 times/minute) in a circular (tangential) direction. As a result the screen around the drum is acting as a normal self-cleaning vibration sieve. 4. A high pressure screw press. Integrated in the drum filter, the primarily drained solution is lifted up into a funnel above and entering a screw press. Here the solid content can be raised from approximately 10 % to more than 40 % of total solids (TS). The draining takes place in a perforated pipe where excess liquid is recycled to the drum without using any pumps. The modules are mounted with both a pressure screw and a back-pressure screw. These are coordinated in relation to each other by the programmable logic controller (PLC). It means that it is possible via the PLC to adjust the total solids content of the solid output fraction to a lower level, if this is requested by the customer. 5. A hydro cyclone. Finally, before the filtrate is leaving the PURROT smaller sediments (like clay) can be separated from the filtrate using a hydro cyclone. These sediments can be recycled and absorbed in new dry matter. Alternatively, the sediments can be taken out as a third output fraction from PURROT. The screen in the PURROT will at intervals automatically be cleaned in place (CIP) using for instance a mineral acid. Cleaning is needed in order to avoid lime and struvite blocking the holes. The CIP-procedure can be triggered when a certain volume of liquid waste is treated or it can be triggered by a reduced flux through the screen. The complete PURROT installation is controlled by the PLC, which is connected to the internet using a wireless connection. Via the internet both the owner of the PURROT and the service company can get information from the specific installation of PURROT. This includes information to the service company when service is needed. It could also be information to the owner that the storage facility for solid fraction is full and needs to be emptied Intended application including matrix, purpose, and technical conditions The intended application of PURROT is described in terms of the matrix and the purposes. Matrix is the type of material that the technology is intended to treat. The purposes of PURROT are the measurable properties that are affected by the technology and how it is affected Matrix PURROT was verified for treatment of three types of liquid wastes: 1) Digested biomass from a biogas plant with a dry matter content of %. 2) Slurry from a pig farm (sow slurry) with a dry matter content of %. 3) Slurry from dairy farm with a dry matter content of % Purposes The overall purpose of PURROT is to upgrade liquid wastes to useful products with added value. This is done by separating the liquid wastes into a solid fraction and a liquid fraction. As a result dry matter and organic bound nutrients are concentrated in the solid fraction. This facilitates the utilization of the individual components in the solid fraction. Such components are for instance, organic dry matter for energy purposes and phosphorous for fertilising purposes. for PURROT Page 6 of 21

7 When pig slurry, cow slurry and digested biomass from biogas plants are treated with PURROT the following effects are claimed: Minimum 55 % of the organic dry matter (volatile solids) in the liquid waste is recovered in the solid fraction. Minimum 35 % of phosphorous in the liquid waste is recovered in the solid fraction. Minimum 15 % of the total-nitrogen in the liquid waste is recovered in the solid fraction. Minimum 35 % of the organic bound nitrogen in the liquid waste is recovered in the solid fraction. Electricity consumption is maximum 2.0 kwh per ton liquid waste treated with PURROT Verification parameters definition In this section the different parameters evaluated as part of the verification are described. Performance parameters are defined taking into account e.g. regulatory requirements, application based needs, and state of the art performance. For the verification of PURROT the following performance parameters have been defined: Share of the organic dry matter (volatile solids) in the liquid waste recovered in the solid fraction. Share of the total-nitrogen (Total-N) in the liquid waste recovered in the solid fraction. Share of the organic bound nitrogen (organic-n) in the liquid waste recovered in the solid fraction. Share of phosphorous (P) in the liquid waste recovered in the solid fraction. An overview of the analytical parameters used for calculation of the performance parameters is given in Table 2. For each of the analytical parameters the analytical method is specified together with the unit used for presenting the results. Table 2. Analytical parameters used for calculation of performance parameters and the corresponding analytical method. Analytical parameter Analytical method Unit Organic dry matter (volatile solids, VS) DIN Percent of sample Total nitrogen (total-n) DIN ISO Kg/ton Ammonium nitrogen (NH4-N) DIN (E 5-2) Kg/ton Phosphorous (P) DIN EN ISO (E 22) Kg/ton The operational parameters evaluated as part of this verification are: Capacity of PURROT measured as tons of liquid waste treated per hour. Electricity consumption of PURROT measured as kwh per ton of liquid waste treated. The user manual and implications on occupational health and environment were not evaluated as part of this verification. In addition to the performance parameters and operational parameters some other parameters were evaluated as part of this verification. In order to characterise the solid output fraction the parameters listed in Table 3 were analysed. for PURROT Page 7 of 21

8 Table 3. List of additional parameters to be analysed in the input flow and the two output flows from PURROT. Parameter Analytical method Unit Dry matter (Total solids, TS) DIN EN Analytical method for measuring VS is DIN Percent of sample Potassium (K) DIN EN ISO (E 22) Kg/ton Potassium oxide (K2O) EN ISO Kg/ton In Table 4 the performance parameters for this specific verification are presented. The figures mentioned in the Value column refer to the performance claims of the proposer. Table 4. Parameter definition table. Parameter Value Existing legal requirements Share of the organic dry matter (volatile solids) in the liquid waste recovered in the solid fraction. Share of the total-nitrogen (Total-N) in the liquid waste recovered in the solid fraction. Share of the organic bound nitrogen (organic-n) in the liquid waste recovered in the solid fraction. Share of phosphorous (P) in the liquid waste recovered in the solid fraction. Test or measurement methods Available test data Minimum 55 % Minimum 15 % Minimum 35 % Minimum 35 % Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable The same test method was used for all four parameters. A series of batch tests were undertaken. In each batch test the volume of liquid waste treated was measured. Also the weight of solid fraction produced during the batch was determined. From these data it was calculated how the weight of the liquid weight treated was distributed on the output products after separation assuming that no losses take place during the treatment. During the batch test samples were taken from input flow and output fractions coming from the separator. After chemical analyses have been done it was possible to make mass balances on the four parameters. Based on the mass balances the separation efficiencies could be calculated. Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 3. Existing data 3.1. Accepted existing data No existing data have been used in the present verification. 4. Evaluation 4.1. Calculation of performance parameters The methods for calculation of the performance parameters are described below. The four performance parameters are expressions of the separation efficiency with respect to selected components. In this verification separation efficiency is defined as the proportion of a given component in the input liquid waste that ends up in the solid fraction after separation. The separation efficiency is expressed as a percent. Separation efficiency (SE) is calculated as shown below. for PURROT Page 8 of 21

9 Where: S SE i = M input,s = C input,s i = SE i S = (M S C i S ) (M input C i input ) 100 Percent of component i in input waste recovered in solid output fraction (S). Mass of liquid waste (input) and solid output (S) fraction respectively. Concentration of component i in input waste (input) and solid output fraction (S) respectively. To calculate the separation efficiencies mass balances with respect to nutrients, total solids and volatile solids have been calculated for each batch. The mass balance calculations are based on the measured concentrations of nutrients and solids and the weight of input and output fractions. If the weight can be determined with reasonable accuracy and no losses occur during the separation process it is acceptable to measure the weight of two mass flows only and then calculate the weight of the third mass flow. Where: M input M L M S M input = M L + M S = Mass of untreated liquid waste = Mass of liquid output fraction = Mass of solid output fraction The separation efficiency of PURROT has been measured by undertaking 2-3 batch tests for each of the 3 types of liquid wastes (matrices) in focus. Each batch test lasted 180 minutes. In each batch test a certain amount of liquid waste was treated in PURROT and the amount of resulting output fractions was measured. Some batch tests were done so that only two output fractions were produced: Filtrate fraction and solid fraction. Some batches were done so that the sediments from the hydro cyclone were taken out of the filtrate as a third output fraction. It has no influence on the performance parameters whether the sediment fraction is taken out or not. Figure 3 is a simplified illustration of the test set-up used for testing PURROT. Figure 3. Simplified illustration of the set-up for the test of PURROT including the four sampling points (SP). for PURROT Page 9 of 21

10 Figure 4 is a photo from one of the batch tests undertaken at the biogas plant of Aarhus University. Figure 4. Photo from one of the batch tests undertaken at the biogas plant of Aarhus University. The solid output fraction is collected in the blue container to the left. Table 5 shows the results from testing PURROT used for separation of cow slurry. The separation efficiencies are calculated as an average from three batches. Batch 1 and 2 were undertaken without producing a sediment fraction, whereas batch 3 was done so that a sediment fraction was produced. Table 5. Cow slurry. Separation efficiency of PURROT treating cow slurry with a total solids content of %. Parameter Share recovered in the solid output fraction after separation with PURROT [95 % confidence interval] Weight 12 % [5 18] Total Phosphorous 23 % [16 31] Total Nitrogen 19 % [10 27] Total solids, TS 54 % [41 67] Volatile solids, VS 60 % [47 73] Organic bound Nitrogen 29 % [15 42] It is seen in Table 5 that 60 % of the volatile solids of the input slurry are recovered in the solid fraction after separation with PURROT. Table 6 shows the results from testing PURROT used for separation of digested biomass taken from a biogas reactor. The separation efficiencies are calculated as an average from three batches. Batch 1 was undertaken without producing a sediment fraction, whereas batch 2 and 3 were done so that a sediment fraction was produced. for PURROT Page 10 of 21

11 Table 6. Digested biomass. Separation efficiency of PURROT treating digestate with a total solids content of %. Parameter Share recovered in the solid fraction after separation with PURROT [95 % confidence interval] Weight 10 % [7 13] Total Phosphorous 46 % [35 58] Total Nitrogen 22 % [18 26] Total solids, TS 56 % [55 57] Volatile solids, VS 62 % [60 64] Organic bound Nitrogen 33 % [22 45] It is seen in table 6 that 22 % of the total nitrogen in the digested biomass is recovered in the solid fraction after separation with PURROT. If the solid fraction is allocated for other purposes than fertilizing on the fields belonging to the biogas plant less area is required for spreading the digested biomass. According to the Danish rules and the separation efficiency of PURROT it is possible to achieve around 35 % reduction in the land required for spreading the nutrients of the digested biomass. Table 7 shows the results from testing PURROT used for separation of pig slurry. The separation efficiencies are calculated as an average from two batches. Batch 1 was undertaken without producing a sediment fraction, whereas batch 2 was done so that a sediment fraction was produced. Table 7. Pig slurry. Separation efficiency of PURROT treating sow slurry with a total solids content of %. Parameter Share recovered in the solid output fraction after separation with PURROT [95 % confidence interval] Weight 4 % [-8 15] Total Phosphorous 33 % [28 39] Total Nitrogen 9 % [6 13] Total solids, TS 44 % [4 85] Volatile solids, VS 54 % [-5 114] Organic bound nitrogen Data not sufficient to calculate the share. It is seen in Table 7 that the weight of the solid fraction constitutes 4 % of the input slurry weight Evaluation of test quality Control data A test system control was performed by Arne Grønkjær-Hansen, AgroTech. The test system control included an evaluation of the weighing device used for weighing the solid output fraction. The calibration of the weighing device was checked on test site by weighing units with known weight. In addition, it was checked that the samples taken during the batch tests were cooled down immediately after sampling. Cooling was done by placing the samples in a cooling box with ice. It was concluded from the test system control, that the test system and the equipment used was suitable for the test activities. Spread sheets used for data recorded during the batch tests and used for the subsequent calculations were subject to control on a sample basis (spot validation of at least 5 % of the data). The data in the spread sheets were found to be identical to the data registered on paper during the batch tests Audits A test system audit with inspection of the test set-up at the test site was done by Peter Fritzel from ETA- Danmark Verification Body on the 14 th of January As part of the test system audit it was evaluated whether the testing was done according to the requirements specified in the test plan and in the specific verification protocol. It was concluded from the test system audit, that there was consistency with the test plan and the test for PURROT Page 11 of 21

12 set-up and that measurements were carried out as described. The audit report of Peter Fritzel is included as Appendix 4 in the test report Deviations Three deviations from the specific verification protocol are reported. An overview with a description of the deviation and the impact/consequence is given in Table 8. Table 8. Summary of deviations from the specific verification protocol. No. Description of deviation Impact / consequence Dev 1 According to the specific verification protocol minimum 3 batch tests for each matrix are required to verify the performance of PURROT. For sow slurry only 2 batches were undertaken. There is higher uncertainty related to the evaluation of performance parameters for sow slurry. Thus, the performance of PURROT cannot be verified for this Dev 2 In the specific verification protocol the operational parameter capacity is calculated as volume liquid treated per hour of operation. However, in this verification report this parameter is expressed as tons liquid treated per hour. matrix, sow slurry. This has no significant impact since it is assumed that 1 cubic meter of liquid waste equals 1 ton of liquid waste. Dev 3 In the specific verification protocol the operational parameter electricity consumption is expressed as kwh per cubic meter liquid waste treated. Instead, in this verification report this parameter is expressed as kwh per ton liquid treated. This has no significant impact since it is assumed that 1 cubic meter of liquid waste equals 1 ton of liquid waste Verification results verified performance claims Performance parameters An overview of the verified performance for the three matrices pig slurry, cow slurry and digested biomass is given in Table 9. Table 9. Verified performance for the selected performance parameters. 95 % confidence intervals are shown in brackets. Parameter Pig slurry Cow slurry Digested biomass Share of the organic dry matter (volatile solids) in the liquid waste recovered in the solid fraction. 54 % [-5 114] 60 % [47-73] 62 % [60 64] Share of the total-nitrogen (Total-N) in the liquid waste recovered in the solid fraction. 9 % [6 13] 19 % [10 27] 22 % [18 26] Share of the organic bound nitrogen (organic-n) in the liquid waste 29 % 33 % Data not sufficient recovered in the solid fraction. [15 42] [22 45] Share of phosphorous (P) in the liquid waste recovered in the solid fraction. 33 % [28 39] 23 % [16 31] 46 % [35 58] Operational parameters The capacity of PURROT is calculated this way: Capacity = (Weight of liquid waste treated during the batch) (Duration of batch measured in hours) for PURROT Page 12 of 21

13 The electricity consumption of PURROT is calculated as follows: Electricity consumption = (Number of kwh consumed during the batch) (Weight of liquid waste treated during the batch) In the measurements it is assumed that 1 m 3 of liquid waste equals 1 ton. Procedures for measuring treated volume and electricity are described in the test report (see Appendix 7). Test results regarding capacity and electricity of PURROT are shown in table 10. Table 10. Measured capacity and electricity consumption of PURROT. 95 % confidence intervals are shown in brackets. Matrix Capacity (tons of input biomass treated per hour) Electricity consumption (kwh/ton treated biomass) Sow slurry (TS = 3.1 %) [ ] [ ] Cow slurry (TS = 7.6 %) [ ] [ ] Digested biomass (TS = 6.3 %) [ ] [ ] In Table 10 it is seen that there are large variations in both the capacity and the electricity consumption depending on the type of liquid waste treated. The higher the dry matter content the lower the capacity and the higher the electricity consumption of PURROT. Thus, for sow slurry with a low dry matter content the capacity is high and the electricity consumption is low compared with cow slurry and digested biomass Environmental parameters The relevant environmental parameters are included as performance parameters as described in section Additional parameters with comments or caveats where appropriate In order to facilitate an evaluation of the solid output fraction as a fuel for bioenergy samples from separation of the three matrices with PURROT have been analysed in order to determine the calorific value. The calorific value is a measure of the energy potential of the solid output fraction if this is used in incineration plants or gasification plants. Table 11 shows the measured calorific values of the solid output fractions from separating the three different matrices with PURROT. Table 11. Calorific value of solid output fraction from separation with PURROT. 95 % confidence intervals are in brackets. Matrix Dry matter content (% TS) Gross calorific value * (MJ/kg dry matter) Net calorific value (MJ/kg dry matter) Solid fraction from separation of sow slurry [ ] [ ] [ ] Solid fraction from separation of cow slurry [ ] [ ] [ ] Solid fraction from separation of digested biomass [ ] [ ] [ ] * The method used for measuring the gross calorific value was DS/CEN/TS Measurements are based on 6 samples for cow slurry and digested biomass and 3 samples for sow slurry. For sow slurry the net calorific value is calculated from the gross calorific value. Table 12 shows the average content of main nutrients and solids in the input cow slurry and in the solid output fraction resulting from separation with PURROT. for PURROT Page 13 of 21

14 Table 12. Cow slurry. Content of main nutrients and solids in input slurry and solid output fraction resulting from PURROT. 95 % confidence intervals are shown in brackets. Cow slurry Total solids (%) Volatile solids (%) Total nitrogen Ammonium-N * Organic N Phosphorous (Kg/ton) Potassium Input slurry [ ] Solid fraction 38.4 [ ] [ ] 35.6 [ ] [ ] 4.77 [ ] [ ] 1.65 [ ] [ ] 3.11 [ ] [ ] 1.23 [ ] *The content of ammonium-n is not analysed in laboratory but calculated as the difference between content of total nitrogen and ammonium-n. [ ] 2.95 [ ] Table 13 shows the average content of main nutrients and solids in the input digested biomass and in the solid output fraction resulting from separation with PURROT. Table 13. Digestate biomass. Content of main nutrients and solids in input and solid output fraction resulting from PURROT. 95 % confidence intervals are shown in brackets. Digested biomass Total solids (%) Volatile solids (%) Total nitrogen Ammonium-N Organic N Phosphorous (Kg/ton) Potassium Input biomass 6.30 [ ] 5.06 [ ] 2.33 [ ] 1.52 [ ] 0.81 [ ] 0.62 [ ] 2.43 [ ] Solid fraction 35.3 [ ] 32.0 [ ] 4.84 [ ] 2.09 [ ] 2.75 [ ] 2.85 [ ] 2.64 [ ] *The content of ammonium-n is not analysed in laboratory but calculated as the difference between content of total nitrogen and ammonium-n. Table 14 shows the average content of main nutrients and solids in the input sow slurry and in the solid output fraction resulting from separation with PURROT. Table 14. Sow slurry. Content of main nutrients and solids in input slurry and solid output fraction resulting from PURROT. 95 % confidence intervals are shown in brackets. Sow slurry Total solids (%) Volatile solids (%) Total nitrogen Ammonium-N Organic N Phosphorous (Kg/ton) Potassium Input slurry 3.07 [ ] 2.16 [ ] 2.50 [ ] 2.23 [ ] 0.27 [ ] 0.60 [ ] 1.52 [ ] Solid fraction 36.9 [ ] 32.0 [ ] 7.18 [ ] 3.00 [ ] 4.18 [ ] 5.40 [ ] 1.47 [ ] *The content of ammonium-n is not analysed in laboratory but calculated as the difference between content of total nitrogen and ammonium-n Recommendations for the Statement of Verification Based on the verified performance described in section 4.3 it is recommended to issue a Statement of Verification including results on the following parameters: Performance parameters: Share of the organic dry matter (volatile solids) in the liquid waste recovered in the solid fraction. Share of the total-nitrogen (Total-N) in the liquid waste recovered in the solid fraction. Share of the organic bound nitrogen (organic-n) in the liquid waste recovered in the solid fraction. Share of phosphorous (P) in the liquid waste recovered in the solid fraction. Operational parameters: Capacity of PURROT expressed in terms of tons of liquid treated per hour in operation Electricity consumption of PURROT expressed in terms of kwh per ton of liquid treated Additional parameters: Content of main nutrients, total solids and volatile solids in the liquid waste and in the solid output fraction from separation with PURROT. for PURROT Page 14 of 21

15 The above mentioned parameters can be verified for PURROT treating cow slurry and digested biomass. Due to lack of data the performance of PURROT cannot be verified for treating sow slurry. 5. Quality assurance The test activities were undertaken by AgroTech Test Centre (test body). AgroTech has a quality management system covering ETV test activities that follows the principles of EN ISO In addition, AgroTech holds an EN ISO 9001 certification covering all its services including tests of environmental technologies and bioenergy technologies. A copy of the Certificate is seen below. It is judged that the quality management system fulfils the requirements of the General Verification Protocol (Chapter C.III) and thereby AgroTech Test Centre is qualified for participation in the EU ETV verification process. The external laboratory used to undertake the chemical analyses was Agrolab, Institut Koldingen GmbH, Breslauer Strasse 60, Sarstedt, Germany. Agrolab holds an accreditation according to EN ISO/IEC and proof of accreditation is included in the test report for PURROT. According to the document Anlage Zur Akkreditierungsurkunde D-PL nach DIN EN ISO/IEC 17025:2005 submitted by the German Na- for PURROT Page 15 of 21

16 tional Accreditation Body, DAkkS, all analyses done by Agrolab as part of this test are covered by the accreditation (DAkkS, 2015). The measurements of calorific values were undertaken by Danish Technological Institute (DTI). DTI does not hold an accreditation according to EU ISO/IEC covering that type of measurements. Consequently, it is recommended not to include the results regarding calorific values in the Statement of Verification. A test system audit on one of the test sites, the biogas plant of Aarhus University. Since similar test systems including similar test equipment were used on both test sites it was judged necessary to undertake the test system audit on one test site only. The test system audit was done by Peter Fritzel from ETA-Danmark Verification Body on the 14 th of January As part of the test system audit it was evaluated whether the testing was done according to the requirements specified in the test plan and in the specific verification protocol. Based on the audit it was concluded, that there was consistency with the test plan and set up and that measurements were carried out as described. Furthermore, a test performance audit was done by Thorkild Frandsen from ETA-Danmark verification body. The performance audit included an evaluation of the uncertainty on the mass balances that constitute the basis for calculating the separation efficiencies. This evaluation is done by calculating the R i -value as a measure of to what extent the mass of nutrients and solids led into the separator is recovered in the solid and liquid output fractions (expressed as a percent). The R i -value is calculated as described below. Where: R i = M I,L,S i = R i = M i I ( M i L + M i S ) M i I 100 Percent of component i not recovered in liquid or solid output fraction Mass of component i in the input waste (I), liquid (L) or solid (S) output fraction According to the specific verification protocol R i has to be less than +/- 25 %. If this is not the case the result has to be omitted from the calculation of separation efficiency. For all batches undertaken with cow slurry and digested biomass the R i -value is less than +/- 25 %. However, for both batches with sow slurry the R i -value for organic bound nitrogen exceeds 25 %. Thus, for PURROT applied for sow slurry no verification can be made regarding separation efficiency with respect to organic bound nitrogen. The test performance audit also included an inspection of the Procedure for Procurement which is part of AgroTech s EN ISO 9001 certified quality management system. Here Agrolab is listed as one of the approved laboratories of AgroTech and the quality of the analyses performed by Agrolab for AgroTech is evaluated on a continuous basis. The specific verification protocol and the verification report required external review according to the EU ETV General Verification Protocol (European Commission, 2014). The external review was undertaken by Bjørn Malmgren-Hansen (BMH) from Danish Technological Institute. Furthermore, the verification body (ETA- Danmark) has reviewed and approved the test plan and the test report. This review was done by Thorkild Qvist Frandsen (TQF). During the verification process the proposer represented by Anders Tange (AT) had the following tasks: To review the specific verification protocol To review and approve the test plan To review the test report and the verification report for PURROT Page 16 of 21

17 6. References Deutsche Akkreditierungsstelle GmbH (2015): Anlage Zur Akkreditierungsurkunde D-PL nach DIN EN ISO/IEC 17025:2005. Urkundeninhaber: Agrolab, Breslauer Strasse 60, Sarstedt. 42 pages. European Commission (2014): EU Environmental Technology Verification pilot programme. General Verification Protocol. Version July 7 th, Frandsen, T.Q. (2014): Specific Verification Protocol. PURROT. ETA-Danmark. Version with clarifications regarding QA added International Standardization Organisation (2008): EN ISO Quality management systems - Requirements Appendix 1 - Terms and definitions Term Definition Comments Accreditation Meaning as assigned to it by Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 EC No 765/2008 is on setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products Additional parameter Other effects that will be described but are considered secondary Amendment A change to a specific verification protocol or a test plan done before the verification or test step is performed Analytical laboratory Independent analytical laboratory used to analyse test samples The test centre may use an analytical laboratory as subcontractor Application The use of a technology specified with respect to matrix, purpose (target and effect) and limitations The application must be defined with a precision that allows the user of a technology verification to judge whether his needs are comparable to the verification conditions DANETV Danish centre for verification of environmental technologies Deviation A change to a specific verification protocol or a test plan done during the verification or test step performance for PURROT Page 17 of 21

18 Term Definition Comments Environmental technologies Environmental technologies are all technologies whose use is less environmentally harmful than relevant alternatives The term technology covers a variety of products, processes, systems and services Evaluation Evaluation of test data for a technology for performance and data quality General verification protocol (GVP) Description of the principles and general procedure to be followed by the ETV pilot programme when verifying an individual environmental technology. Innovative environmental technologies Environmental technologies presenting a novelty in terms of design, raw materials involved, production process, use, recyclability or final disposal, when compared with relevant alternatives. Matrix The type of material that the technology is intended for Matrices could be soil, drinking water, ground water, degreasing bath, exhaust gas condensate etc. Method Action described by e.g. generic document that provides rules, guidelines or characteristics for tests or analysis An in-house method may be used in the absence of a standard, if prepared in compliance with the format and contents required for standards. Operational parameter Measurable parameters that define the application and the verification and test conditions. Operational parameters could be temperature, production capacity, concentrations of nontarget compounds in matrix etc. (Initial) performance claim Proposer claimed technical specifications of technology. Shall state the conditions of use under which the claim is applicable and mention any relevant assumption made. The proposer claims shall be included in the ETV proposal. The initial claims can be developed as part of the quick scan. Performance parameters (revised performance claims) A set of quantified technical specifications representative of the technical performance and potential environmental impacts of a technology in a specified application and under specified conditions of testing or use (operational parameters). The performance parameters must be established considering the application(s) of the technology, the requirements of society (legislative regulations), customers (needs) and proposer initial performance claims. for PURROT Page 18 of 21

19 Term Definition Comments Potential environmental impacts Estimated environmental effects or pressure on the environment, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of a technology under specified conditions of testing or use. Procedure Detailed description of the use of a standard or a method within one body The procedure specifies implementing a standard or a method in terms of e.g.: equipment used. Product Ready to market or prototype stage product/technology, process, system or service based upon an environmental technology. In the EU ETV GVP (European Commission, 2014) the term technology is used instead of the term product. Proposer Any legal entity or natural person, which can be the technology manufacturer or an authorised representative of the technology manufacturer. If the technology manufactures concerned agree, the proposer can be another stakeholder undertaking a specific verification programme involving several technologies. Can be vendor or producer Purpose The measurable property that is affected by the technology and how it is affected. The purpose could be reduction of nitrate concentration, separation of volatile organic compounds, reduction of energy use (MW/kg) etc. Ready to market technology Technology available on the market or at least available at a stage where no substantial change affecting performance will be implemented before introducing the technology on the market (e.g. full-scale or pilot scale with direct and clear scale-up instructions). Specific verification protocol Protocol describing the specific verification of a technology as developed applying the principles and procedures of the EU GVP and this quality manual. Standard Generic document established by consensus and approved by a recognised standardization body that provides rules, guidelines or characteristics for tests or analysis for PURROT Page 19 of 21

20 Term Definition Comments Test body Unit that that plans and performs test Verification body Unit that plans and performs the verification Test/testing Determination of the performance of a technology for measurements / parameters defined for the application. Test performance audit Quantitative evaluation of a measurement system as used in a specific test. E.g. evaluation of laboratory control data for relevant period (precision under repeatability conditions, trueness), evaluation of data from laboratory participation in proficiency test and control of calibration of online measurement devises. Test system audit Qualitative on-site evaluation of test, sampling and/or measurement systems associated with a specific test. E.g. evaluation of the testing done against the requirements of the specific verification protocol, the test plan and the quality manual of the test body. Test system control Control of the test system as used in a specific test. E.g. test of stock solutions, evaluation of stability of operational and/or on-line analytical equipment, test of blanks and reference technology tests. Vendor The party delivering the technology to the customer. In the EU ETV GVP and in this quality manual referred to as proposer. Can be the producer. Verification Provision of objective evidence that the technical design of a given environmental technology ensures the fulfilment of a given performance claim in a specified application, taking any measurement uncertainty and relevant assumptions into consideration. for PURROT Page 20 of 21

21 Appendix 2 Quick scan The report from the quick scan is attached to the verification report as a separate file. Appendix 3 Proposal The verification proposal is attached to the verification report as a separate file. Appendix 4 Specific verification protocol The specific verification protocol is attached to the verification report as a separate file. Appendix 5 Amendment and deviation report for verification No amendment report has been made for the verification of PURROT. The deviation report is attached to the verification report as a separate file. Appendix 6 Test plan The test plan is attached to the verification report as a separate file. Appendix 7 Test report The test report is attached to the verification report as a separate file. for PURROT Page 21 of 21