Evaluation and Demonstration of Five Different Filtration Technologies as an Advanced Primary Treatment Method for Carbon Diversion

Performance evaluation of first full‐scale primary filtration using a fine pore cloth media disk filter

“…The effects of grease and slime buildup in the pulsed bed filter were controlled with a periodic disruption of the filter bed during the filtration cycle and the incorporation of a chemical clean cycle as part of the routine filter maintenance program (Matsumoto et al., 1982). The feasibility of PEF using the pulsed bed filter was demonstrated subsequently in other studies (Brown, 1987; Environmental Resources Management & Inc., 1986) and more recently with a variety of new filter technologies (Caliskaner et al, 2015, 2016, 2017).…”

“…Important potential benefits that can result from the implementation PEF and PF, based on the results of previous studies (Caliskaner et al, 2015(Caliskaner et al, , 2016(Caliskaner et al, , 2017(Caliskaner et al, , 2018(Caliskaner et al, , 2020Dean, Matsumoto, Weber, & Tchobanoglous, 1986;Franchi & Santoro, 2015;Paulsrud, Rusten, & Aas, 2014;Rusten & Odegaard, 2006), include:…”

“…Important potential benefits that can result from the implementation PEF and PF, based on the results of previous studies (Caliskaner et al, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020; Dean, Matsumoto, Weber, & Tchobanoglous, 1986; Franchi & Santoro, 2015; Paulsrud, Rusten, & Aas, 2014; Rusten & Odegaard, 2006), include: Decreased electrical energy required for aeration (by approximately 15%–30%) in secondary treatment because of reduced organic loading, Increased gas energy production in the anaerobic digestion process (by 30%–40%) resulting from the high organic energy content of the volatile suspended solids (VSS) removed and the increased volume of primary sludge sent to the anaerobic digesters, Expanded secondary treatment capacity by reducing the organic loading upstream of the secondary process, Enhanced particle size characteristics of the wastewater to be treated biologically, increasing the effectiveness of secondary treatment, Reduction of footprint required for primary treatment by approximately 60%–70%, and Reduced capital cost for primary and secondary treatment processes. …”

Oxygen transfer and plant‐wide energy assessment of primary screening in WRRFs

“…Enhanced primary treatment and carbon diversion play a key role in emerging wastewater treatment schemes where energy optimization and carbon management are of concern (Gori, Jiang, Sobhani, & Rosso, 2011; Ho, Santoro, Sarathy, & Scott, 2017). Several wastewater primary screening technologies offering a higher degree of primary treatment are gaining interest in water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) as a method to minimize aeration requirements while maximizing carbon diversion (Caliskaner et al., 2015; Ruiken, Breuer, Klaversma, Santiago, & van Loosdrecht, 2013). Enhanced removal of particulate and colloidal fractions by filtration or screen‐based methods can result in operational savings in the downstream aerobic biological processes by increasing the oxygen transfer efficiency while allowing the recovery of energy in the form of methane via anaerobic sludge treatment processes (Franchi & Santoro, 2015; Ruiken et al., 2013).…”

“…The main difference between PFs and RBFs is the medium pore size, which will influence the treatment performance and overall operational costs. While PFs achieves 75%–85% TSS and 45%–60% COD reduction (Caliskaner et al., 2015; Caliskaner, Tchobanoglous, Young, & Laybourne, 2014) by using a relatively smaller pore size (i.e., 5–10 μm), the RBF reaches lower treatment removal of 20%–40% TSS and 30%–40% COD (Ho et al., 2017; Taboada‐Santos, Lema, & Carballa, 2019) due to the much larger size of the mesh pores (i.e., 100–500 µm). However, in both cases, the TSS removal efficiency can be significantly higher than the TSS removal (50%–60%) from conventional primary clarifiers operated at typical design conditions (Metcalf & Eddy, 2014).…”