Pilot testing of direct and indirect potable water reuse using multi-stage ozone-biofiltration without reverse osmosis

Hooper, Jennifer; Funk, Denise; Bell, Katherine Y.; Noibi, Morayo; Vickstrom, Kyle; Schulz, Chris; Machek, Eddie; Huang, Ching-Hua

doi:10.1016/j.watres.2019.115178

Cited by 32 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In some cases, salt removal treatment may also be needed when the total dissolved solids in the incoming water are close to the secondary maximum contaminant limit. However, once the criteria for the source water characteristics are met, ozone‐BAF can be more advantageous in terms of cost and performance compared with membrane‐based treatment for inland application (Hooper et al, 2020). While it may not provide similar total organic carbon (TOC) removal as the membrane‐based process, ozone‐BAF can provide a similar level of CEC removal (Vaidya et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Persistent contaminants of emerging concern in ozone‐biofiltration systems: Analysis from multiple studies

Sari

Oppenheimer

Robinson³

et al. 2020

AWWA Water Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water quality, in combination with design and operational data collected from multiple studies, was assessed to benchmark the performance of ozone‐biologically active filtration in reuse applications. A total of 149 contaminants of emerging concern, representative of multiple categories and chemical structures, were prioritized and systematically compared to elucidate apparent differences in removal capabilities as affected by multiple factors such as influent water matrix, ozone‐to‐organic carbon ratio, empty bed contact time, filtration media type, and initial media condition. The results were consistent with earlier findings for the removal of highly amenable compounds but demonstrate inconsistencies and knowledge gaps across multiple facilities for the more persistent compounds. Analysis of this multistudy data‐mining effort also demonstrates a complicated interplay between contaminant removal and numerous design and operational variables. Hence, further systematic investigation is warranted to elucidate the underlying removal mechanisms.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Persistent contaminants of emerging concern in ozone‐biofiltration systems: Analysis from multiple studies

Sari

Oppenheimer

Robinson³

et al. 2020

AWWA Water Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…FAT would mitigate the formation of these compounds at no additional cost as the UV/AOP process would remove NDMA via photolysis, and without ozone, bromate would not form. Additional details on the pilot performance for blends greater than 15% can be found in Hooper et al (2020) and Funk et al (2018). Due to the higher effluent quality of FAT, FAT is expected to be sized to treat a smaller capacity and lower dilution in order to attain the same water quality as ozone-BAF at a 15% blend.…”

Section: Water Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ozone‐biologically active filtration (BAF)‐based treatment has been used for potable water treatment to remove a variety of organic and inorganic compounds (Terry & Summers, 2018), increase biological stability (LeChevallier et al, 2015), and degrade trace chemical constituents (Brown, Summers, Dickenson, & Upadhyaya, 2018; Dickenson et al, 2018; Halle, Huck, & Peldszus, 2015; Hooper et al, 2020; McDowall, Hoefel, Newcombe, Saint, & Ho, 2009; Zearly & Summers, 2012). The Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources (GCDWR) uses non‐RO‐based ozone‐BAF advanced treatment for planned IPR at the 60 mgd F. Wayne Hill Water Resources Center (FWH WRC) and 98 mgd Shoal Creek Filter Plant (SCFP).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Treatment at the SCFP involves ozone, coagulation, flocculation, direct filtration using anthracite biofilters, and chlorine disinfection. A 9‐month pilot study was conducted in 2016 and 2017 to evaluate treatment non‐RO‐based ozone‐BAF for DPR at various blends of advanced treated water (Funk et al, 2018; Hooper et al, 2020). A 15% blend was the highest ratio that achieved primary and secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) measured.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Direct potable reuse using full advanced treatment versus ozone biofiltration: A cost comparison

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cost of direct potable reuse (DPR) using reverse osmosis (RO) and full advanced treatment (FAT) based on advanced oxidation process was compared with a non‐RO‐based treatment train with ozone and biologically active filtration (BAF). Costs were calculated assuming a blend of 15% advanced treated water with the current potable water supply, Lake Lanier. The 30‐year amortized capital and operational costs were US$4,830/mil gal for FAT and $1,900/mil gal for ozone‐BAF. The primary additional cost associated with FAT was due to the mechanical evaporation of RO brine concentrate disposal. The costs for producing water using FAT integrating a vibratory shear‐enhanced processing‐RO (VSEP‐RO) to further concentrate the RO brine were lower than those for mechanical evaporation alone ($3,510/mil gal). While VSEP‐RO improved overall costs, ozone‐BAF‐based treatment was less than half the cost of FAT. Thus, ozone‐BAF may provide a more economical alternative compared with FAT for inland facilities considering DPR.

show abstract

“…Advanced water treatment (AWT) systems used for potable reuse have started incorporating the use of ozone, biologically activated carbon (BAC) filtration, and granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption in the treatment process (Hooper et al, 2020; Knopp, Prasse, Ternes, & Cornel, 2016). One of the goals of these treatment processes is the removal of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing Ozone‐BAC‐GAC in potable reuse for removal of emerging contaminants

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Removal of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) is an important consideration in potable reuse. The effectiveness of ozonation, biologically activated carbon (BAC) filtration, and granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption was assessed in the removal of 96 CECs. During phase 1, O3/total organice carbon (TOC) was varied between 0 and 1.5. Ozone was successful in removing CECs, achieving a total CEC concentration of 20.5 μg/L at an O3/TOC of 1.5 compared with 70 μg/L in absence of ozone. CECs such as iohexol, meprobamate, sucralose and flame retardants, tris(2‐carboxyethyl)phosphine (TCEP), tris(1‐chloro‐2‐propyl) phosphate (TCPP), and tris(1,3‐dichloro‐2‐propyl)phosphate (TDCPP) were detected in the ozone effluent even at the highest ozone dose. BAC filters did not contribute measurably to CEC removal, while the 20‐min empty bed contact time (EBCT) GAC removed 57.6% of the influent CEC concentration, even though the adsorption capacity had been exerted through previous operation. During phase 2, the average O3/TOC ratio was 0.64, and the impact of new GAC media on CEC removal was studied. EBCT was maintained at 15 min for both GAC contactors, while the used GAC (133,600 bed volume [BV]) was replaced with new media in one GAC contactor. The GAC with new media removed CECs below the limit of quantitation, up to 10,000 BV, while removal decreased to 70% after 20,000 BV, with seven CECs—sucralose, iohexol, acesulfame‐k, meprobamate, cotinine, primidone, and acetaminophen—being detected. Ozone doses for CEC removal and BV needed for adsorption of CECs on activated carbon can be determined from this study. Thus, the results from this study can help design and optimize ozone, BAC, and GAC systems used for potable reuse to target the removal of specific CECs.

show abstract

Pilot testing of direct and indirect potable water reuse using multi-stage ozone-biofiltration without reverse osmosis

Cited by 32 publications

References 48 publications

Persistent contaminants of emerging concern in ozone‐biofiltration systems: Analysis from multiple studies

Persistent contaminants of emerging concern in ozone‐biofiltration systems: Analysis from multiple studies

Direct potable reuse using full advanced treatment versus ozone biofiltration: A cost comparison

Implementing Ozone‐BAC‐GAC in potable reuse for removal of emerging contaminants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About