Phosphorus Extraction & Recovery. Copyright 2016, Renewable Nutrients, LLC

Transcription

1 hosphorus Extraction & Recovery Copyright 2016, Renewable Nutrients, LLC

2 Introduction hosphorus Removal vs Recovery Recovery Options Comparison of Recovery Technologies Intro to Quick Wash hosphorus Recovery Quick Wash rocess Review Configurations erformance Review Calcium hosphate 2

3 Removal vs Recovery Traditional nutrient treatment/removal focuses on removing nutrients from liquid streams Wastewater Energy, Chemicals 3

4 Removal vs Recovery Removal of phosphorus from WRRFs has historically been through chemical binding & accumulation Degree of removal is a function of liquid effluent permit requirements Liquid Effluent hosphorus Alum, Ferric Chloride Cerium Chloride Lower Liq. Effluent = Higher Solids Solids 4

5 Removal vs Recovery Traditional nutrient treatment/removal focuses on removing nutrients from liquid streams Wastewater Energy, Chemicals A new paradigm of recovery has emerged Nutrients (hosphorus, Nitrogen), Energy Wastewater 5

6 Removal vs Recovery Extractive nutrient recovery provides an additional outlet for phosphorus and beneficial use of the resource Liquid Effluent hosphorus Nutrient product (e.g. Calcium hosphate) Solids 6

7 hosphorus Recovery Nutrient (hosphorus) recovery requires a 3-component approach Low Mainstream Accumulation Release Recovery effluent Recovered Accumulation increases the nutrient or content Release to generate low-flow and high nutrient or stream Recovery to produce high nutrient or product/resource 7

8 hosphorus Recovery Nutrient (hosphorus) recovery is a 3-component approach Accumulation Release Recovery Enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBR) Chemical Algae Membrane filtration Anaerobic digestion WAS Release Chemical extraction Chemical precipitation 8

9 hosphorus Recovery Enabling recovery in WRRFs Influent rimary Clarifier BNR Final Clarifier Effluent Solid Stream Recovery rimary Sludge Thickening TWAS WAS Anaerobic Digester Solid Stream Recovery RAS Dewatering Biosolids Effluent Recovery Centrate/Filtrate Side Stream Recovery 9

10 hosphorus Recovery Side Stream Recovery Influent rimary Clarifier rimary Sludge Quick Wash Ostara earl Multiform Harvest CN-Airprex hospaq NuReSys WAS BNR RAS Final Clarifier Effluent Thickening TWAS Anaerobic Digester Dewatering Biosolids Centrate/Filtrate Side Stream Recovery 10

11 hosphorus Recovery Solid Stream Recovery Influent rimary Clarifier BNR Final Clarifier Effluent Solid Stream Recovery rimary Sludge Quick Wash Ostara earl (Requires WASSTRI) Thickening TWAS WAS Anaerobic Digester Solid Stream Recovery RAS Dewatering Biosolids Effluent Recovery Side Stream Recovery Centrate/Filtrate Quick Wash 11

12 Technology Comparison hosphorus Removal Technologies Chemical EBR Algae Struvite Calcium hosphate Characteristic Alum, Ferric Chloride, Cerium Chloride A 2 /O, 4-5 Stage Bardenpho, Biological/Chemical, SBR CLEARAS ABNR, Algae Wheel, Lagoon Settling Systems Ostara, Multi-Form Harvest, CN-Airrex, hospaq, Crystalactor, NuReSys Side stream Application vs Main Stream Application Both Solid Stream N/A (Mainstream Treatment) Side Stream Both Solids Stream Application No No No No Yes Removal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recovery No No Yes Yes Yes Sludge Bulking Yes Yes No No No Byproduct/roduct Recovered N/A N/A Algae Biomass Chrystal Green, BioStru, Struvite Fertilizer Calcium hosphate - Hydroxylapatite % Efficiency of Recovery N/A N/A >95% 45% - 90% >95% Scalability Small to Large Facilities, most ubiquitious methodology of removal Typically larger facilities >10MGD Scales from small to large facilities Large Facilities - economical when sidestreams contribute >20% of total load Scales from small to large facilities 12

13 Technology Comparison hosphorus Removal/Recovery Technologies Chemical EBR Algae Struvite Calcium hosphate Characteristic Alum, Ferric Chloride, Cerium Chloride A 2 /O, 4-5 Stage Bardenpho, Biological/Chemical, SBR CLEARAS ABNR, Algae Wheel, Lagoon Settling Systems Ostara, Multi-Form Harvest, CN-Airrex, hospaq, Crystalactor, NuReSys Side stream Application vs Main Stream Application Both Solid Stream N/A (Mainstream Treatment) Side Stream Both Solids Stream Application No No No No Yes Removal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recovery No No Yes Yes Yes Sludge Bulking Yes Yes No No No Byproduct/roduct Recovered N/A N/A Algae Biomass Chrystal Green, BioStru, Struvite Fertilizer Calcium hosphate - Hydroxylapatite % Efficiency of Recovery N/A N/A >95% 45% - 90% >95% Scalability Small to Large Facilities, most ubiquitious methodology of removal Typically larger facilities >10MGD Scales from small to large facilities Large Facilities - economical when sidestreams contribute >20% of total load Scales from small to large facilities 13

14 Technology Comparison hosphorus Removal/Recovery Technologies Chemical EBR Algae Struvite Calcium hosphate Characteristic Alum, Ferric Chloride, Cerium Chloride A 2 /O, 4-5 Stage Bardenpho, Biological/Chemical, SBR CLEARAS ABNR, Algae Wheel, Lagoon Settling Systems Ostara, Multi-Form Harvest, CN-Airrex, hospaq, Crystalactor, NuReSys Side stream Application vs Main Stream Application Both Solid Stream N/A (Mainstream Treatment) Side Stream Both Solids Stream Application No No No No Yes Removal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recovery No No Yes Yes Yes Sludge Bulking Yes Yes No No No Byproduct/roduct Recovered N/A N/A Algae Biomass Chrystal Green, BioStru, Struvite Fertilizer Calcium hosphate - Hydroxylapatite % Efficiency of Recovery N/A N/A >95% 45% - 90% >95% Scalability Small to Large Facilities, most ubiquitious methodology of removal Typically larger facilities >10MGD Scales from small to large facilities Large Facilities - economical when sidestreams contribute >20% of total load Scales from small to large facilities 14

15 Technology Comparison hosphorus Removal/Recovery Technologies Chemical EBR Algae Struvite Calcium hosphate Characteristic Alum, Ferric Chloride, Cerium Chloride A 2 /O, 4-5 Stage Bardenpho, Biological/Chemical, SBR CLEARAS ABNR, Algae Wheel, Lagoon Settling Systems Ostara, Multi-Form Harvest, CN-Airrex, hospaq, Crystalactor, NuReSys Side stream Application vs Main Stream Application Both Solid Stream N/A (Mainstream Treatment) Side Stream Both Solids Stream Application No No No No Yes Removal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recovery No No Yes Yes Yes Sludge Bulking Yes Yes No No No Byproduct/roduct Recovered N/A N/A Algae Biomass Chrystal Green, BioStru, Struvite Fertilizer Calcium hosphate - Hydroxylapatite % Efficiency of Recovery N/A N/A >95% 45% - 90% >95% Scalability Small to Large Facilities, most ubiquitious methodology of removal Typically larger facilities >10MGD Scales from small to large facilities Large Facilities - economical when sidestreams contribute >20% of total load Scales from small to large facilities 15

16 Intro to Quick Wash History of Development Benefits rocess Review erformance Review 16

17 Benefits Removes and recovers more than 95% of phosphorus Reduce phosphorus recycle load Reduce polymer & metal salts Reduce disposal costs Eliminate struvite scaling Increase revenue Meet EA nutrient TMDL requirements 17

18 rocess Flow ph ph Agricultural or Sanitary Waste Low or no- Liquid Stream Return to Headworks Low or no- Biosolids for land application Extracted 18

19 rocess Flow in ractice ph ph Agricultural or Sanitary Waste -Rich Solution Low or no- Liquid Stream Return to Headworks Low or no- Biosolids for land application Extracted Calcium hosphate 19

20 Configurations/Applications Side Stream from dewatering (aerobic or anaerobic) Solids rior to dewatering rior to thickening & anaerobic digestion re-treat a high industrial discharge Animal agriculture applications Other custom configurations 20

21 Solids Stream Extraction/Recovery 21

22 Side Stream Extraction/Recovery 22

23 ilot/trial Locations Facility Size ilot/trial Dates Treatment Ephrata, A 2 MGD Jan-Feb 2015 Solid Stream (Feed to BF) Westminster, MD 5 MGD March 2015 Solid Stream (Feed to Dewatering) Raleigh, NC 60 MGD April-May 2015 Side Stream (Filtrate from BF) Greenville, NC 14 MGD May & July 2015 Chapel Hill, NC 8 MGD July 2015 Side Stream (Filtrate from BF) and Solid Stream (Feed to BF) Side Stream (Filtrate from Rotary ress) and Solid Stream (Feed to Rotary ress) Walk Stock Farm, IL Ag Trial Fall 2015 Raw Swine Manure (its) Fertilizer Manufacturer, A National Swine roducer, NC Industrial Aug 2016 Byproduct of Manuf rocess Ag Trial Sept 2016 Raw Swine Manure (Lagoons) 23

24 ilot/trial erformance BF Filtrate Total Ortho (M) Total Ortho (Soluble) Extraction % Recovery % Feed to BF Total Ortho (M) Total Ortho (Soluble) Extraction % Recovery % Raw Filtrate Feed (Tot ) Sidestream of 60MGD WWT Raw Feed to BF (Tot ) 172 Feed to BF of 12MGD WWT Filtrate Sep 1 Liquid % BF Feed Sep 1 Liquid 172 >99% Filtrate Sep 2 Solids 161 BF Feed Sep 2 Solids Filtrate Sep 2 Liquid 0 >99% BF Feed Sep 2 Liquid 1.2 >99% Rotary ress Filtrate Raw Filtrate Feed (Tot ) Filtrate Sep 1 Liquid Filtrate Sep 2 Solids Total Ortho (M) Total Ortho (Soluble) Extraction % Recovery % 498 Sidestream of 14MGD WWT % Select On-Board & 3 rd arty Analytical Results Quick Wash ilot Operations Filtrate Sep 2 Liquid 0 >99% 24

25 ilot/trial erformance Facility Extraction % Recovery % Stream Characteristics Situation Regional Swine roducer - Walk Stock Farm, IL Fall % >99% Raw hog manure in sow and finisher pits Desire to expand operation, but limited by available land to apply manure due to restrictions Fertilizer Manufacturer, A August % >99% Dewatered poultry litter Recover to mix into custom liquid fertilizer blends for specific markets/customers National Swine roducer, NC September % >99% Raw hog manure in lagoons Unique application for beneficial re-use of phosphorus 25

26 Calcium hosphate Over 99% of 2O5 in recovered calcium phosphate is plant available Amorphous calcium phosphate (AC) - more soluble than crystalline calcium phosphates such (e.g. hydroxylapatite) Recovered Calcium hosphate vs Fertilizer - SS 16% - 22% TS - 44% - 53% Calcium hosphate % 205 lant Availability of - SS 97% - 100% - TS 97% - 100% - Calcium hosphate 99.88% plant available Sources: 1.Szogi, A., Bauer,., Vanotti, B. - Fertilizer Effectiveness of hosphorus Recovered from Broiler Litter, Agronomy Journal, Volume 102, Issue 10, Szogi, A., Vanotti, B. - Agronomic Effectiveness of Calcium hosphate Recovered from Liquid Swine Manure, Agronomy Journal, Sept. 10,

27 Contacts & Resources Michael Schmid Larry Sandeen Operations & Marketing Technical & Engineering Resources RenewableNutrients.com Quick Wash Video Quick Wash General Brochure Quick Wash Side Stream Brochure Quick Wash Solid Stream Brochure Quick Wash Agriculture Brochure Quick Wash resentation Calcium hosphate In the News 27