membrane-aerated bioreactors for treatment a …
TRANSCRIPT
MEMBRANE-AERATED BIOREACTORS FOR TREATMENT
OF WASTE WATER IN LONG-TERM SPACE FLIGHT by
ERIC MCLAMORE, B.S.
A THESIS
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Approved
August, 2004
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A thank you goes out to Dr. Andrew Jackson, Dr. Audra Morse, Dr. Dean
Muirhead, and Tony Rector for their guidance and support. A special thanks to the
Advanced Life Support Systems Water Team Unit at Johnson Space Center. Their
continuing help has been greatly appreciated over the last four years. In addition, the
authors would like to thank the student workers at Texas Tech University for their efforts.
u
n
V
viii
xi
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ABSTRACT
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. BACKGROUND 3
2.1 Water Recovery in Space 3
2.2 Water Recovery at NASA 4
2.3 Water Recovery at TTU 9
2.4 Membrane-Aerated Biological Reactors 11
2.5 Processes Affecting Reactor Performance 13
2.5.1 Physiological Processes 13
2.5.2 Biological Processes 20
2.5.2.1 Water Quality Variations in Feed Tank 20
2.5.2.2 Urea Hydrolysis 25
2.5.3 Equivalent System Mass 26
III. MATERIALS AND METHODS 28
3.1 Water Recovery Systems at TTU 28
3.1.1 TTU-WRS 28
3.1.2 PB-AMR 30
3.1.3 Feed composition 34
3.2 Mass Transfer Experiments 37
3.3 Hydrodynamics Experiments 38
3.4 Biolchemical Characterization of Feed Tank Reactions 40
ui
3.5 Analysis 42
3.5.1 Sample collection 42
3.5.2 Sample Analysis 43
3.5.2 Data Analysis 43
3.5.3.1 Nitrification 43
3.5.3.2 Denitrification 44
3.5.3.3 Determination of Organic Nitrogen 45
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 47
4.1 Water recovery systems at TTU 47
4.1.1 PB-AMR 47
4.1.1.1 Mass Transfer 47
4.1.1.2 Hydrodynamics 49
4.1.2 Biochemical characterization of feed tank reactions 54
4.1.2.1 Urease Activity 63
4.1.2.2 Determination of Useable DOC 65
4.1.3 Bioreactor System Comparison 71
4.1.4 Equivalent System Mass 81
IV. CONCLUSION 84
REFERENCES 86
APPENDIX
A PB-AMR PHYSIOLOGICAL DATA 90
B PB-AMR BIOLOGICAL DATA 99
C FEED TANK ANALYSIS DATA 135
D ESMDATA 142
IV
ABSTRACT
In the future, long-duration space exploration will require the design of robust
advanced life support systems capable of supporting in-flight crews. The advanced life
support systems should be reliable while requiring little to no maintenance and
monitoring. Past systems onboard the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
(NASA) SkyLab and Russia's MIR Space Station utilized an efficient but expensive
physio/chemical water recovery system. The past systems were not independent and
relied on shuttle resupply. Current NASA research is focused on water recovery systems
involving biological treatment. The objective of the biological treatment system in
combination with the physio/chemical system is to limit shuttle resupply and required
astronaut maintenance while meeting NASA's requirements for flight-ready water
recovery systems. Performance objectives based upon Finger et al. (1999) include a
microgravity compatible design, a minimum of 50% nitrification and a 365 day operation
life. Other performance objectives include an increase in reliability and a reduction in
astronaut maintenance time when compared to the current design.
One of the most extensively analyzed biological water recovery systems was buih
and operated at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC). A downscaled model (l/20'^) of
the water recovery system at JSC has been analyzed at Texas Tech University (TTU) for
the last four years. Although efficient, the current nitrifying bioreactor within the
biological system has experienced problems with excessive loss of biofilm and constant
required crew observation. In an attempt to increase the efficiency of the biological
portion of the WRS, a gravity compatible membrane-aerated bioreactor (MABR) was
constructed and operated at TTU in August 2003.
The MABR at TTU operated as a plug-flow reactor where forced convection was
the major mode of transport. Substrate (carbon) limitations in the bioreactor feed
composition dominated the efficiency of the system, while electron acceptor transport
was not limiting. It is hypothesized that the MABR at TTU is oversized and ongoing
research will aid in sizing the bioreactor. The AMR required little to no maintenance,
was not subject to shock loading, did not experience excessive sloughing and was not
subject to significant failure to maintain treatment efficiency at any point during the
experiment. Large fiuctuations in alkalinity and ammonia loading rates did not shock the
AMR system. The presence of heterotrophic biofilms in the AMR did not decrease
reactor efficiency or increase maintenance requirements (McLamore et al , 2004).
Results from the MABR at TTU indicate that the MABR is a highly robust and versatile
gravity-compatible nitrifying reactor with little to no required crew maintenance.
Quantification of the transport and transformation processes within the MABR at
TTU indicated that the MABR is a likely candidate to replace the current nitrifying
reactor. Although ESM analysis indicated that the TR was more efficient than the
MABR, detailed analysis implied that the MABR was a much more versatile reactor than
the TR and over-sizing may have caused ESM analysis to be misleading. The use of an
MABR as a nitrifying bioprocessor could potentially reduce advanced life support
systems cost and required astronaut time which would be of great benefit to NASA.
VI
Future long-duration missions may reconfigure in-flight hardware due to the reduction in
payload weight and overall mission costs.
vu
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Average Waste Compound Concentrations 8
2.2 MABR Test Point Summary 13
2.3 Feed Tank Alterations at TTU 21
2.4 TC and COD Values For Compounds in Urine 23
2.5 Reaction Pathways ofCommon Compounds Found in Human Urine 25
3.1 TTU-WRS Design Details 29
3.2 PB-AMR Design Details 33
3.3. Simulated Humidity Condensate in Feed at TTU 35
3.4 Typical Surfactant Contribution in Raw Feed 36
3.5 Composition of Simulated Feed at TTU 37
4.1 AMR Mass Transfer 48
4.2 Hydrodynamic Results 53
4.3 Measured Hydrolytic Ammonia Production in Feed Tanks 58
4.4 Mature and Clean Feed Tank Comparison 58
4.5 Average Feed Tank Urea/Org-N Fraction 68
4.6 AMR BOD, COD and DOC Influent and Effluent Values 73
4.7 Nitrifying Reactor pH Decrease 78
4.8 Average Influent and Effluent values 79
4.9 ESM Analysis 82
A. 1. Mass Transfer Experiment # 1 Test Parameters 91
A.2. Mass Transfer Experiment #1 Test Results 91
A.3. Mass Transfer Experiment #2 Test Parameters 91
A.4. Mass Transfer Experiment #2 Test Results 92
A. 5. Mass Transfer Experiment #3 Test Parameters 92
A. 6. Mass Transfer Experiment #3 Test Results 92
A.7. Mass Transfer Reactor Characteristics 93
A.8. Mass Transfer Membrane Resistances 93
viu
A.9. Mass Transfer Dimensionless Numbers 93
A. 10. PB-AMR RRO Tracer Study Experimental Resuhs 94
A.ll . PB-AMR Port Study Bromide Data 95
A.12. PB-AMR Port Study Nitrite Data 95
A. 13. PB-AMR Port Study Nitrate Data 95
A. 14. PB-AMR Port Study NOx Data 95
A. 15. PB-AMR Port Study TN Data 96
A. 16. PB-AMR Port Study Nitrification Data 96
A. 17. PB-AMR Port Study Denitrification Data 96
A. 18. PB-AMR Hydrodynamic Analysis 97
A. 19. PB-AMR Hydrodynamic Dimensionless Numbers 98
B.l. PB-AMR pH Data 100
B.2. PB-AMR TN Data 105
B.3. PB-AMR Alkalinity Data 110
B.4. PB-AMR TOC Data 115
B.5. PB-AMR TA Data 120
B.6. PB-AMR N02"-N Data 125
B.7. PB-AMR NO3-N Data 130
C I . Mature Feed Tank #1 Data 136
C.2. Mature Feed Tank #2 Data 137
C.3. Mature Feed Tank #3 Data 138
C.4. Clean Feed Tank #1 Data 139
C.5. Clean Feed Tank #2 Data 140
C.6. Clean Feed Tank #3 Data 141
D.l. AMR Reactor Description 143
D.2. AMR Porosity Design 143
D.3. AMR Volumes 144
D.4. AMR Reynold's Numbers (RR20) 144
D.5. AMR Reynold's Numbers (RRIO) 145
IX
D.6. PB Reynold's Numbers (RR20) 145
D.7. PB Reynold's Numbers (RRIO) 145
D.8. PB-AMR and TTU-WRS HRT 145
D.9. AMR ESM 146
D.IO. TRESM 146
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 Aerobic Biofilm in Typical Attached Growth Systems 16
2.2 Typical Biofilm Formation on Silicon Membrane 17
2.3 Ideal Tracer Response Curves 20
3.1 Biological Portion of Water Recovery System at TTU 29
3.2 PB-AMR System Layout 31
3.3 AMR System 32
3.4 AMR Port Study Configuration 39
3.5 Urea Hydrolysis Test Schematic 41
4.1 AMR Hydrodynamic Experimental Results. 50
4.2 AMR Port Study Results 51
4.3 Mature and Clean DOC 55
4.4 Mature and Clean TA 55
4.5 Moles ofTA Produced Per Mole of DOC Consumed 57
4.6 Mature and Clean DO 59
4.7 Mature and Clean COD 60
4.8 (COD/ThCOD) Response Factor Ratio 62
4.9 Mature and Clean Feed Tank Average pH Values 64
4.10 Mature Feed Tank fu-N 66
4.11 Clean Feed Tank Urea/Org-N Fraction 67
4.12 Determination ofUseable DOC Methods 70
4.13 PB-AMR pH Data 72
4.14 PB-AMR DOC Data 74
4.15 PB-AMR TN Data 75
4.16 PB-AMR NOx-N Data 76
4.17 PB-AMR Effluent Nitrogen Distribution 77
4.18 PB-AMR vs. TTU-WRS System Performance 80
D.l. AMR Porosity Design 143
XI
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS
AMR = Advanced Membrane Reactor
C(TN)initiai = Feed TN concentration
C/Co - normalized tracer response
CM = Complete Mixed Reactor
CTSD = Crew and Thermal Systems Division
D = coefficient of axial dispersion
dC(NOx)/dt = Mass increase in NOx due to nitrification
dC(TN)/dt = Mass decrease in N due to denitrification
DDI = Deionized-Disfilled Water
DO = Dissolved Oxygen
DOC = Dissolved Organic Carbon
DOCf = Final dissolved organic carbon concentration
DOCi = Initial dissolved organic carbon concentration
ECLSS = Environmental Control and Advanced Life Support Systems
EPS = Extracellular Polysacharides
ESM = Equivalent-System Mass
fu-N = Fraction of organic nitrogen as urea
AG° = Gibbs Free Energy at Standard Temperature and Pressure
GLS = Gas-Liquid Separator
H = Henry's Constant
HC= Humidity Condensate
IC = Ion Chromatography
IE = Ion Exchange
ISS = International Space Station
J = Flux
JSC = Johnson Space Center
kooc m = DOC Reaction Rate in Mature Feed Tank
xi i
koocc = DOC Reaction Rate in Clean Feed Tank
ko = Gas mass transfer resistance
kt = Liquid mass transfer resistance
km = Membrane mass transfer resistance
ko = Overall mass transfer resistance
kjA.m = Ammonia Reaction Rate in Mature Feed Tank
kTA.m = Ammonia Reaction Rate in Clean Feed Tank
L = reactor length [cm],
LCMS = Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry
MN/C = Ratio of moles of ammonia produced per mole of DOC degraded
MABR = Membrane-Aerated Bioreactor
MDL = Minimum Detection Limit
MWD = Molecular Weight Distribution
NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration
PB = Anaerobic Packed Bed
Pe # = Peclet number
PF = Plug-Flow Reactor
PPKm®= Pert Plus for Kids "minus"
PPS= Post-Processing System
RO = Reverse Osmosis
Re # = Reynold's Number
RFR = Response factor ratio
RR = Recycle Ratio
Sh # = Sherwood Number
9 = normalized time
T = theoretical detention time
Xe = Membrane Thickness
t = time
TAf = Initial ammonia concentration
xiu
TAi = Final ammonia concentration
TC = Total Carbon
TDS = Total Dissolved Solids
ThCOD = Theoretical Chemical Oxygen Demand
Th.Org-N = Theoretical Organic Nitrogen
TN = Total Nitrogen
TOC = Total Organic Carbon
TR = Tubular Reactor
TTU = Texas Tech University
u = fluid velocity
Um = Measured Urea Concentration
UV = Ulfraviolet Disinfection
WRS = Water Recovery System
XIV
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Long-duration space exploration requires environmental control and advanced life
support systems (ECLSS) capable of providing potable water and oxygen for a typical
crew of asfronauts. Considerations in the design of water reclamations systems in space
include shelf life, resupply-retum logistics, crew time needed for maintenance, power
needs to operate the system, launch weight and stowage volume (National Academy
Press, 2000). The high cost of transporting the large amount of water required for long-
duration missions is impracticable and research is currently under way by ECLSS to
improve the efficiency of environmental systems in space.
One of the systems under consideration for long-term water reclamation in space
includes a biological system upstream from a physio/chemical system. The biological
portion of the system contains an anaerobic packed bed (PB) designed to reduce organic
carbon via denitrification and a tubular reactor (TR) designed to oxidize inorganic
nitrogen species (via nitrification) prior to physio/chemical treatment. Current research is
being conducted at TTU on a downscaled model (1/20*) of the biological system at
NASA-JSC. Although the nitrifying bioreactor at JSC and TTU was highly efficient in
terms of launch weight and stowage volume, the system was unpredictable and required
constant crew observation and maintenance. Various alternative nitrifying bioreactors
have been constructed and operated in an attempt to avoid the required maintenance and
high unpredictability of the original nifrifying reactor.
A novel alternative nitrifying bioreactor designed and operated at TTU is a
membrane-aerated bioreactor (MABR) known as the advanced membrane reactor
(AMR). The considerations listed above and the physiological and biological processes
occurring within the AMR were analyzed and compared to the TR in an attempt to verify
the assumption that the AMR is a highly robust gravity compatible nitrifying reactor that
could possibly be a potential replacement for the TR. Should the AMR maintain steady
state treatment levels equal to or greater than the TR in the TTU system, the initial
assertion could be made that the AMR is a possible candidate to replace the TR following
observations that the AMR has less maintenance requirements than the TR.
CHAPTER II
BACKGROUND
2.1 Water Recoverv in Space
Recently, global trends such as increased population growth, severe drought, and
environmental concerns have increased the worldwide importance of water reclamation.
Additionally, the United State's re-commitment to a long-term human space exploration
program in 2004 highlights the importance of water reclamation systems (WRS). Current
long-term manned missions, such as the International Space Station (ISS), are not self
sufficient, requiring shuttle missions for resupply. Depending on the future mission
scenario, water reclamation for space applications can be viewed as either a potential
long-term efficiency measure or as a requirement in the case of very long-duration
missions (e.g., extended moon expeditions or missions to Mars). Researchers at NASA
and elsewhere have conducted significant research on biological pretreatment and/or
physio/chemical water reclamation processes.
Water reclamation systems have been used in space travel for the last 30 years.
One of the first WRS to be used in space was NASA's Sky Lab system, which was
launched in 1973 and returned in 1979; the longest manned occupation of SkyLab was 84
days. Water has been recovered from humidity condensate wastestreams since the era of
Russia's Salyut WRS in the 1970s. Russia's MIR water recovery system was launched
after SkyLab and has been in operation since 1989. The WRS aboard MIR freated three
separate wastestreams: urine, humidity condensate and hygiene wastewater. Each system
receives supplemental fuel cell-generated water supply to compensate for system losses,;
thus significantly increasing mission costs. Water recovered from the urine stream was
used to generate oxygen by a water electrolysis system. Potable water for drinking,
hygiene, cooking, etc. was recovered from the other wastestreams. The most recent WRS
in space is onboard the International Space Station (ISS). The water processor onboard
the ISS Alpha treats a single combined wastestream. The ISS and MIR systems utilize
multifiltration as a means of primary treatment and require pretreatment by one of several
distillation/evaporation processes. These pretreatment phase change processes are very
costly as the latent heat of vaporization must be supplied. Long-term space missions
require a self-reliant WRS that can maintain near 100% water reclamation efficiency
under zero gravity conditions for long periods of time at minimum payload weight to
significantly reduce mission costs.
2.2 Water Recoverv at NASA
NASA has currently been investigating the potential of a combined biological-
physical water recovery system (WRS) to reclaim wastewater for potable water uses.
The physical portion of the WRS, known as the post-processing system (PPS) consists of
reverse osmosis (RO), ion exchange (IE) and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. The purpose
of the biological system is to reduce cost and required astronaut maintenance time by
replacing the current phase-change pretreatment process and improving water quality
upstream of the PPS. This paper focuses on optimizing bioreactor performance and
increasing the versatility of the biological portion of the WRS. The WRS would not
replace disinfection agents as disinfection is a requirement for all water supplies in space
to maintain flight crew health.
To investigate the potential of a biological WRS in space, an immobilized cell
bioreactor (ICB) was designed and extensively analyzed at Johnson Space Center (JSC)
during the Lunar-Mars Life Support Phase 111 Test (Pickering et al., 1998). Following
the Phase III Test, researchers in the Advanced Life Support unit at JSC have
successfully developed a biological and physio/chemical treatment train capable of
treating wastewater typical of extraterrestrial waste streams known as the Advanced
Water Recovery System (AWRS). The AWRS was operated at NASA's JSC by the
Crew and Thermal Systems Division (CTSD) from 1998 to 2001. The system consisted
of a biological carbon-nitrogen removal system followed by a post-processing system
consisting of reverse osmosis, ion exchange, and UV treatment. The biological
component of the WRS is the focus of this research; details concerning the operation of
the post-processing system at JSC can be found in Verostko et al. (2000). The goal of the
CTSD was to design a robust system capable of treating all of the waste streams
produced during long-term space missions to drinking water standards. The applications
of such a system include long-term missions in space such as the International Space
Station and extended lunar expeditions. A robust WRS that requires little or no astronaut
maintenance time and zero resupply of potable water would be of great value to the space
industry.
The compounds to be removed within the biological portion of the WRS are
carbonaceous and nitrogenous material. The typical processes of concern in the removal
of carbon and nitrogen from wastewaters are nitrification and denitrification.
Nitrification is the process by which autotrophic microorganisms oxidize ammonia (NH4-
N) to nifrite (NOi'-N) and/or nifrate (NOs'-N) by utilizing oxygen as the terminal electron
acceptor (see Equation 2.1).
NH4 -^ NH2OH -> ? -^ NO2" -^ NOB" Equation 2.1.
The initial monooxygenation of NH4 to NH2OH (hydroxylamine) requires oxygen as a
direct reactant and is the first step in the nitrification process; this step is usually
neglected as oxidation from hydroxylamine to nitrite is considered to take place
instantaneously. The intermediate between hydroxylamine and nitrite is not known
(Henze et al., 2002). The oxidation of NH4-N to N02'-N is normally attributed to being
carried out by the nitrosomonas bacteria; however, nitrosopira has gained recognition in
recent years for a large percentage of the oxidation. Ammonium oxidation by
nitrosomonas/nitrosopira is more energetically favorable (with AG =-45.79 kJ per e" eq)
than nitrite oxidation carried out by the nitrobacter/nitrospira genus (AG =-37.07 kJ per
e' equivalent) (Rittman et al., 1994). The term incomplete nitrification refers to the
presence of NOi'-N within the bulk liquid, while the term complete nitrification refers to
the conversion of NH4-N to NOa'-N. Incomplete nitrification takes place when the
ammonium ion concentration is excessively high causing the ammonium oxidation rate to
be higher than the nitrite oxidation rate, and is not necessarily an indication of poor
system performance. Incomplete nitrification can, however, reduce the efficiency of
heterotrophic denitrifying organisms downstream as fewer electrons are available from
nitrite than nitrate.
The denitrification process follows the nitrification process and is the
mineralization of organic carbon by heterotrophic bacteria utilizing nitrite/nitrate as the
terminal electron acceptor. Denitrifying organisms are facultative aerobes that can shift
between organic and inorganic electron donors; for the research herein, only the organic
electron donor is considered due to the nature of the waste. Although the denitrification
process is the second step in the biological removal of organic carbon and NH4-N from
wastestreams, the denitrification process is typically located upstream of the nitrification
process in small scale systems so that removal of organic carbon takes place prior to the
wastestream entering the nitrifying reactor. This is done to ensure that the slow-growing
autotrophic nitrifying bacteria are not out-competed by heterotrophic bacteria within the
nitrifying reactor. A recycle line from the effluent of the nitrifying reactor back to the
head of the denitrifying reactor is typically included to supply the electron acceptor for
the denitrification process. The majority of the organic carbon removal within biological
systems of this type takes place within the anaerobic region but some aerobic carbon
oxidation can take place within the nitrifying bioreactor. Denitrification is a four-step
process that involves the sequential reduction of NO3" to NO2", nitric oxide (NO), nitrous
oxide (N2O) and finally nitrogen gas (N2) (see Equation 2.2).
NOa"^ NO2" -^ NO ^ N2O -^ N2 (gas) Equation 2.2.
The AWRS at JSC contained a waste collection system (WCS) consisting of a shower,
urinal and sink to accurately simulate wastesfreams produced on board a typical space
flight. The average compound concentrations collected in the WCS are presented in
Table 2.1 (Campbell et al., 2003; Thomas et al., 1991; Verostko et al., 1989; Wydeven et
al., 1990).
Table 2.1. Average Waste Compound Concentrations
Compound
Shower water
Soap for shower
(guideline)
Handwash water
Soap for handwash
(guideline)
Urinal flush water
Urine
Simulated humidity
condensate
Oral hygiene water
Total volume per day
5.44 L/d
0.012 kg/d
8.16 L/d
0.032 kg/d
1.0 L/d
3.0 L/d
4.54 L/d
0.72 L/d
The AWRS at JSC was designed to process a 2-person load typical of wastewater
onboard the ISS (Campbell et al , 2003). The microgravity compatible biological portion
of the WRS is composed of an anaerobic packed bed (PB) upstream from a gravity
independent nitrifying tubular reactor (TR) (Ungar et al., 1998). The PB is designed to
remove nitrogen and organic carbon through the process of denitrification. The system
has an internal recycle to allow nifrite/nitrate ions (NOx) produced during nitrification to
be used during denifrification. Although the biological portion of the JSC-WRS achieved
acceptable levels of carbon and nitrogen removal, the nitrifying TR at JSC required
continual maintenance and regulation of excessive biomass buildup to avoid decreases in
nitrification efficiency and total system performance. For more details on the operation
and performance of the WRS at JSC, see Campbell et al. (2003). The excessive buildup
of biomass in the JSC-TR caused shedding events which occasionally reduced the
efficiency of the JSC-WRS to unacceptable levels and the system was placed on recycle
to recover system performance. The term shedding refers to excessive biomass buildup
within the 3.2 mm (0.125 in.) inside diameter tubing, causing an increase in shear forces
on the biofilm and resulting in sloughing of nearly all biomass downstream from the
shed. To control excessive biofilm growth and reductions in treatment efficiency, the
JSC-TR required continual maintenance and removal of sloughed biofilm.
2.3 Water Recoverv at TTU
In order to increase the versatility of the data collected on the WRS system, TTU
has been conducting research on a downscaled model (l/20') of the JSC-WRS for the
past three years (Jackson et al., 2002). Operation of the TTU-WRS was designed to be
similar to the JSC-WRS so the two systems could be compared. Organic carbon is
removed within the PB by denitrification, and NOx"-N is oxidized to N2 (gas) to be
removed by a downstream gas-liquid separator (GLS). The summation of N02'-N and
NO3-N is taken as NOx-N throughout this paper. The TR is designed to remove
inorganic carbon and oxidize NH4^-N to NOx-N (the electron acceptor used during the
denitrification process). Muirhead et al. (2003) reported 50% removal of ammonia and
80% removal of influent organic carbon within the TTU-WRS for a recycle ratio (RR) of
1:20 (expressed as raw feed to TR recycled effluent). Operation of the TTU-WRS has
since been conducted at numerous recycle ratios to determine the effect of various
recycle ratios on system efficiency (Jackson et al., 2004). Test points varying from RR2
to RR20 were completed on the TTU-WRS and it was noted that recycle ratio has no
significant effect on treatment efficiency, but operational issues (such as excessive
clogging at low recycle ratios) did occur (Jackson et al., 2004). The recycle ratios
analyzed in this paper were RRIO and RR20. The fate of various pharmaceuticals
(mainly amoxicillin) within the TTU-WRS was examined between 2001 and 2003
(Morse et al., 2004).
As occurred in the JSC-TR, the TR at TTU, while effective at nitrification,
suffered in efficiency due to biomass sloughing. The sloughing events caused loss of
biofilm downstream of the events and required an excessive amount of manpower to
monitor and control events. In an attempt to avoid temporary system failure, the TR at
TTU was equipped with biofilm traps and forced to shed when tube pressures exceeded
75.8 kPa (11.0 psi) by drastically increasing the air and liquid fiowrate. Due to the lack
of a solid-liquid separation process, suspended cells leaving the PB may have increased
the frequency of shedding events by augmenting the buildup of biofilm on the walls of
the tubes. NASA engineers require onboard spaceflight systems that need little or no
astronaut maintenance time. Due to the sporadic shedding events that resulted in poor
10
performance and large maintenance requirements, the current TR design was not deemed
to be a technology that would be used in future manned space missions. Data from both
the JSC and TTU-WRS indicated that it could be significantly advantageous to replace
the TR with a more robust, low maintenance reactor. As such, researchers at TTU
designed and built a membrane-aerated bioreactor as a potential replacement for the
tubular reactor (Morse et al., 2003).
2.4 Membrane-Aerated Biological Reactors
Application of membrane-aerated bioreactors to long-term space flight is
appealing due to the ease of operation and microgravity-compatible nature. Preliminary
work at TTU indicated that MABR systems have less biomass management issues than
the current nitrifying reactor at TTU (McLamore et al., 2004). In addition, MABR's have
the advantage of providing an electron acceptor (in this case O2) on the lumen side of the
biofilm and wastewater on the bulk liquid side; other attached growth systems rely on
electron acceptor and substrate diffusion from the bulk liquid side. A test phase MABR
constructed and operated at JSC by Finger et al. (1999) reported 50% conversion of
influent organic nitrogen to N2 (gas) and 93% dissolved organic carbon (DOC) reduction;
the DOC being removed in the anoxic zone upstream of the membrane-aerated nitrifying
reactor. The DOC values noted herein refer to samples which were filtered in a 0.4 | m
filter before being analyzed for TOC. This method is used to avoid any TOC degradation
within sample bottles following sample collection.
11
A preliminary membrane-aerated bioreactor known as the preliminary advanced
membrane reactor (preliminary AMR) was constructed at TTU and designed as a possible
candidate to replace the TR as a simple, robust, space efficient nitrifying reactor
(McLamore et al , 2004; Morse et al., 2003; Morse et al., 2002). Data from the
preliminary AMR indicated that the AMR was a highly efficient microgravity compatible
nitrifying reactor. The preliminary AMR was not downstream of an anoxic zone
promoting denitrification. The percent nitrification for the preliminary AMR (60.7%)
was above the minimum accepted value reported for membrane-aerated bioreactors by
Finger et al. (1999) during RRIO. The percent denitrification within the preliminary
AMR (91%)) was due to a combination of aerobic organic carbon oxidation and
denitrification due to the formation of anoxic zones within the reactor (McLamore et al.,
2004). The amount of aerobic DOC oxidation {3%) was comparable to values reported
by Finger et al , (1999); the values of percent DOC reduction during denitrification
reported herein are corrected for aerobic DOC oxidation taking place within the
membrane reactor. Additionally, the preliminary AMR provided a foundation of
experience in operation and maintenance of the MABR systems. Following the
indication that the preliminary AMR was a highly robust, self-sufficient nitrifying
reactor, a second AMR was built and operated at TTU so that a comparison could be
made between the TR and AMR as microgravity compatible nitrifying reactors for long-
term space applications (see Table 2.2).
12
Table 2.2. MABR Test Point Summary
System
Preliminary
AMR
PB-AMR
PB-AMR
PB-AMR
Test
Point
RR2, RR5, RR10,RR20
Startup
RR20
RRIO
Start
Date
6/5/2002
7/28/2003
9/19/2003
1/17/2004
End
Date
5/14/2003
9/18/2003
1/16/2004
4/2/2004
Duration
[days]
343
52
125
73
The second WRS (PB-AMR) constructed at TTU consists of an AMR
downstream of an anaerobic packed bed. This system mimics the TTU-WRS and all data
collected from the two systems can be directly compared (following normalization for
hydraulic retention time). The systems each receive the same waste stream and are
maintained in the same fashion. The PB-AMR system was operated at identical TTU-
WRS test points to allow for direct comparison of data.
2.5 Processes Affecting Reactor Performance
2.5.1 Physiological Processes
Transport processes including hydrodynamics and mass transfer were investigated
in order to analyze and fully understand the AMR system. Interphase transport refers to
processes such as the mass transfer of oxygen and adsorption while intraphase transport
refers to processes such as molecular transport due to advection. Mass transfer in
bioreactors and the type of flow regime occur sequentially and a complete analysis
depends on examination of both parameters as changes in either parameter will alter
13
system performance. Election acceptor mass fransfer is controlled via the transmembrane
pressure delivered to the system and the local biofilm thickness, while substrate mass
transfer is controlled by the fluid specific velocity and local biofilm thickness.
Depending on the type and concentration of the influent substrate, transport properties
can be the rate limiting step in bioreactor design. Characklis et al. (1990) stated that the
transport processes are the main distinguishing factors between biofilm systems and
traditional attached growth systems. Experimental determination of reactor transport is
particularly significant in MABR's due to the complexity of the system. A brief
discussion of biofilm configuration and structure is necessary in order to fully understand
the common fransport processes occurring in attached growth bioreactors. Significant
increases in biofihn thickness confribute to fluid frictional resistance and the formation of
microchannels, possibly creating preferential flow patterns. Mass transfer and
hydrodynamic properties should be evaluated before and after biofilm formation to
account for fransport alterations due to the growth of the biofilm.
In biological systems mass transfer in biofilms can limit microbial reactions and
overall system performance. In a typical biofilm, extracellular polymers (EPS) are
considered to act as the "cement" holding groups of microbial clusters together, while
liquid is allowed to flow through the void spaces. The specific type of EPS depends on,
amongst other things, the type of microbial population but all EPS act as diffusion
barriers, molecular sieves and adsorbents, regardless of their charge density or acidic
natiare (Characklis et al., 1990). MasS transfer in biofilms is a direct function of the EPS-
free void spacing where electron donor, electron acceptor and nutrient transport takes
14
place by diffusion, advection, or a combination of the two; it is generally accepted that
diffusion is the major type of transport in biofilms but analysis of mass transfer and
hydrodynamics is required to accurately model the biofilm within the system. Characklis
et al. (1990) noted an increase in active biofilm thickness with an increase in substrate
concenfration to a maximum point when the active biofilm thickness exceeds the depth of
subsfrate penefration into the biofilm.
The active biofilm layer is typically described by zero order kinetics. The
thickness of the active layer is a function of bacteria type, mass transfer, hydrodynamics
and subsfrate type/concenfration. Henze et al. (2002) noted a required time of 14 days
for an active biofilm to form on a clean surface and a required time of 2 days for a
biofilm to re-form on a svurface after sloughing occurred. One of the concerns when
dealing with microgravity-compatible bioreactors is the occurrence of bubbles within
aerobic biofilms which can result in biofilm detachment (see Figure 2.1). In typical
aerobic attached growth systems, such as trickling filters, bubble formation can form on
the surface-bound side if anaerobic layers exist because oxygen diffusion may not occur
throughout the entire biofilm. This surface-bound bubble formation can significantly
increase sloughing of the biofilm.
15
aerobic anoxic aiueroliic
Electron Acceptor
Substrate (C/N)
Siir&ce Film
Base Film
"'-'"A
Figure 2.1. Aerobic Biofilm in Typical Attached Growth Systems
Mass fransfer within membrane-boimd biofilms is more complicated than the
typical attached grov^^h systems described above (see Figure 2.2). Substrate diffusion
and electron acceptor diffiision must occur from opposing sides of the biofilm. This
"dual substrate limitation" increases the complexity of the transport processes and
depends on both interphase and infraphase transport processes. Mass transfer refers to
oxygen transport from the lumen side of the membrane, while hydrodynamics refers to
substrate transport through forced convection (Cussler, 1997). Following biofilm
formation, the two properties are not independent and both are a function of biofilm
cliaracteristics (density, thiclmess and type of bacteria). Complete diffusion of both
16
subsfrates and electron acceptor must occur from opposing sides of the biofilm to have a
fully active biofilm layer. Not only does bulk transport influence biofilm formation, and
therefore freatment efficiency, but the accumulation of biofilm influences bulk liquid
processes (i.e., hydrodynamics). An extreme increase or decrease in mass transfer or
hydrodynamics within the system could possibly shock the microbial population. It is
hypothesized that excess dissolved oxygen concenfrations within the biofilm could
reduce the Van der Walls adhesive forces at the membrane-bound side of the biofilm;
however it is unknown if this reduction is significant.
Elfcti-oii Acceptor
Oxvaen
Sub,s'li-afe
.Aininoiua
Figure 2.2. Typical Biofilm Formation on Silicon Membrane
Mass transfer in attached grov^h systems takes place in the EPS-free void spaces
within biofilms. Molecular diffiision through EPS-free void spaces occurs in any
direction within the biofilm, as advection transports liquid to the clusters themselves.
Cussler (1997) noted that mass transfer is quantified by two common methods of
analysis: Fick's first law of diffiision (using diffusion coefficients) and the "no name"
17
method using mass fransfer coefficients. Cussler (1997) stated that "neither the equation
using the mass fransfer coefficient nor that using the diffiision coefficient D is always
successfiil." The AMR was analyzed using both methods but the results using mass
fransfer coefficients were much more accurate than those from Fick's Law. Mass transfer
coefficients are considered applicable to the analysis of the system as they are generally
considered to be a combination of diffusion and dispersion.
The overall resistance to mass transfer (ko) within membrane reactors of this type
is composed of three separate resistances, i.e.,
1/ko = l/ko + [Te/(km*H)] + (l/kO Equation 2.3.
where:
1/ko = overall mass fransfer resistance [L/T],
l/ko = gas mass transfer resistance [L/T],
[Te/(km'''H)] = membrane transfer resistance [L/T] and
(1/kL) = liquid mass transfer resistance [L/T].
where the value of each resistance is represented by its respective mass transfer
coefficient. The gas mass fransfer resistance (ko) is usually much less than the liquid and
membrane resistance, and thus can be considered negligible in mass fransfer analyses of
this type (Cussler, 1997). The unitless Sherwood's number is generally used to define the
relative worth between the individual mass fransfer resistances; the Sherwood number is
the ratio of overall mass transfer to diffusional mass transfer (Cussler, 1997).
18
Cote et al. (1989) noted that the majority of the resistance was from the bulk-
liquid interface for silicon membranes similar to those used in the AMR. The liquid film
resistance is a fimction of fransmembrane pressure, biofilm thickness and hydrodynamic
properties, to name a few. Research has indicated that the liquid-film resistance can be
decreased by many methods; including increases in forced convection and rotation of the
reactor vessel (Rector et al., 2004; Casey et al., 2000) but these measures were not
included due to the extent of mass fransfer in the AMR. The membrane resistance is a
function of membrane type and membrane thickness.
Throughout this paper, the terms advection and forced convection are used
synonymously, where the fransport is due to fluid velocity from pumping. The modeling
of the hydrodynamic behavior within a bioreactor is vitally important in understanding
system performance. A typical tracer response for a completely mixed (CM) reactor and
a plug-flow (PF) reactor is presented below. Reactor performance is expected to be
arbifrary (non-ideal), but the closer the flow regime lies to being ideal, the simpler the
hydrodynamic modeling becomes. Experiments to quantify both mass transfer and
hydrodynamics allowed determination of the major mode of transport in the AMR both
before and after biofilm formation. Generally if forced convection (fiowrate) is increased
transport, and therefore treatment efficiency, increases in attached growth systems
(Characklis et al., 1990). Research has indicated that extremely large increases in forced
convection would be required to increase overall fransport within the AMR designed at
TTU (Weisner, 2004). Tracer studies were conducted at each system operating point to
ensure that the dominant form of transport and flow regime were accounted for when
19
analyzing the system. A detailed description of the fracer studies and their resuhs
presented in Chapters III and IV, respectively. are
o o c o
c V u c o o 0)
.N
E
1.0
0.8
0.6
0,4 -
0,2 -
0,0 -
Ideal Plug-flow
2 3 4
Normalized time (t/x)
Figure 2.3. Ideal Tracer Response Curves
2.5.2 Biological Processes
2.5.2.1 Water Quality Variations in Feed Tank
Before discussing the efficiency of the nifrifying and denitrifying bioreactors, it is
important to consider feed tank activity. It was initially assumed, followdng current
literature, that all hydrolysis reactions would be complete within a matter of minutes and
that significant biological activity within the feed tank would be negligible (Fidaleo et al.,
2003). The purpose of the biochemical feed tank analysis was to investigate ammonia
and organic carbon loading rate assumptions for the biological reactors at TTU during
normal operation, aiding in sizing and mass balances for the biological reactors within the
20
WRS. The experiment specifically aids in designing optimum wastestream holding times
prior to delivery to the biological system. Some of the problems encountered during the
operation of the biological portion of the TTU systems include inaccurate NH4^ and DOC
concenfrations; the average fraction of "useable DOC" being the main concern. Useable
DOC refers to the organic carbon that can be utilized by heterotrophic bacteria within the
biological system. During initial operation of the TTU-WRS, urine was collected and
used to make fresh bioreactor feed daily, with feed tanks being regularly cleaned to
minimize activity within the feed tank. In an attempt to reduce the large variations of
feed concentrations associated with the raw feed tanks the biological feed preparation
methods were altered at TTU (see Table 2.3). However, the high variability of ammonia
(from 120 mg-N/L to 630 mg-N/L) and DOC (from 105 mg-DOC/L to 805 mg-DOC/L)
persisted in the feed tank foUovidng these alterations.
Table 2.3 Feed Tank Afterations at TTU
Alteration
Feed tank cleaning ceased
Urine refrigerated for 24-hours
Urine stored for 24
hours at room temperature
No decant of excess feed
Desired Effect
Increase hydrolytic activity
Allow hydrolysis to occur
before feed solution formulated
Increase hydrolysis
reaction rate
Increase hydrolytic activity
Alteration
Continued
yes
no
yes
yes
21
Daily urine compound concentrations vary drastically with things such as
individual diet, use of medications, exercise and sex of donor. Urine is composed of
elecfrolytes, small molecular weight proteins and various nutrient metabolites. Some
typical compounds found in urine are iron salts, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium,
chlorides, phosphates, citrates, oxalates, sulfates, hormones and vitamins (National
Academy Press, 2000). Research has been conducted to examine some of the compounds
in female vu-ine and their effect on system performance (Morse et al., 2004). Although
the urine in the ground-based systems will have a slightly different chemical composition
than that in space, the WRS is designed to be a robust system capable of handling large
daily fluctuations in wastesfream composition. It is the high daily variability in
individual urine concentrations that causes the relatively high standard deviation in all of
the carbon and nitrogen data concerned with biological systems. Preliminary feed tank
studies indicated a pH increase of 2.1, a decrease of 40 mg-DOC/L and an increase of
110 mg-N/L over a 60 hour period. Theoretical chemical oxygen demand (ThCOD)
values were calculated following Equation 2.4 taken from Metcalf and Eddy (2002).
CnHaObNc + dCr207^- + (8d + c)!!^ -^ nCOz + (a+8d-3c)/2 + cNH4^ + 2dCr^^
Equation 2.4.
where:
d=(2n/3) + (a/6)-(b/3)-(c/2)
The relative concentrations of typical compounds found in urine are presented in Table
2.4 and were taken from Altman et al (1989), Diem and Lentiier (1989), Hawk et al
22
(1989), Long (1989), Putiiam et al (1989), Smith et al (1989) and Webb et al (1989). The
values are based on average urine concenfrations and do not necessarily accurately
represent the daily compound concenfrations. Not all of the compounds listed in Table
2.4 can be utilized by heterotrophic bacteria as organic carbon sources for cell synthesis
and some of the compounds following hippuric acid are amino acids that can be directly
assimilated for direct cell utilization. The compounds of interest in this research were
urea, creatinine and hippuric acid. The TC/ThCOD values in Table 2.4 indicate the
theoretical approximate freatability of each of the compounds found in typical urine; this
is a relative value and does not necessarily represent the specific biodegradability of each
compound. It was estimated from values in Metcalf and Eddy (2002) tiiat TC/ThCOD
values below approximately 0.5 indicate compounds which are not easily degradable by
biological means and TC/ThCOD values above 0.5 indicate that the compound may have
some toxic components at high concentrations or acclimated microorganisms may be
required for degradation; the reference to 0.5 is a "rough" adapted number that does not
Table 2.4. TC and COD Values for Compounds in Urine
Compound
Urea
Creatinine
Hippuric Acid
L-Histidine
Range
[mg/]
9550-23900
675-2000
240-1560
40-335
Assumed
Concentration
[mg/L]
13400
1790
900
190
TC/ThCOD
[mg-TC/mg-
ThCOD]
0.00
0.00
0.71
0.29
23
Table 2.4. Continued
Compound
a-D-Glucose
Cifric Acid
Taurine
Uric Acid
L-Glutamic Acid
L-Lactic Acid
Glycine
Phenol
Formic Acid
Oxalic Acid
Reinge
[mg/]
50-300
95-1000
5-295
210-870
1-485
50-600
90-360
300-320
30-140
1-50
Assumed
Concentration
[mg/L]
175
550
150
540
240
325
225
310
85
25
TC/ThCOD
[mg-TC/mg-
ThCOD]
0.39
0.35
0.26
0.69
1.43
0.41
0.46
1.20
0.11
0.77
specifically define biodegradability. The 0.5 mg-TC/mg-ThCOD value is an estimation
based on BOD and ThCOD values in Metcalf and Eddy (2002) and is not an
experimental value obtained at TTU. Compounds such as lactic acid and glycine are
highly degradable. The only compound with a TC/ThCOD ratio greater than 0.5 that has
a significant typical concentration is hippuric acid.
Nearly all of the individual compounds found in urine are subject to hydrolysis
reactions in the presence of specific hydrolytic enzymes. Most of these enzymes are
either found in human urine, produced by bacterial cells within the biological system, or
24
both. Bitton (1999) noted that non-protein groups may also be involved in catalytic
activity of the subsfrate-specific enzyme. In order to quantitatively define the
concenfration of useable DOC within the raw feed, a general overview of the reaction
pathways for the major compounds in urine is necessary. Table 2.5 presents one of the
reaction pathways and required enzyme for hydrolysis of the three major compounds in
urine.
Table 2.5 Reaction Pathways ofCommon Compounds Found in Human Urine
Compoimd
Urea
Creatinine
Hippuric
Acid
Hydrolytic
Enzyme
Urease
Creatinine
Deiminase
Histozyme
Product
NH3, CO2
C4H9N3O2
CeHsCOOH
Product
Concenfration
[mg-N/L]
8026
2070
90
Product
Concentration
[mg-C/L]
2675
190
120
2.5.2.2 Urea hydrolysis
Urea is the most prevalent compound found within human urine, and it can be
seen in Table 2.5 that the nitrogenous and carbonaceous contribution of urea to the
biological system is the most abundant of all the compounds in urine. The products of
urea hydrolysis are NH3 and CO2; the hydrolysis is described in Equation 2.5.
(OC(NH2)2) + 2H2O -^ 2NH3 + H2CO3 + H2O -^ 2NH4 + 20H Equation 2.5.
25
It is generally accepted that hydrolysis to ammonia does not occur in the absence of the
urease enzyme. Although urea is an organic compound, the carbonaceous product of
urea hydrolysis is inorganic by nature, and therefore may not be utilized by heterotrophic
bacteria for cell growth.
Fidaleo et al. (2003) developed an enzymatic kinetic expression describing urea
hydrolysis in the 4-9 pH range. Although jack bean urease and synthetic urea were used
in the analysis, as opposed to raw urine, the simplified model gives a rough indication of
the average reaction rates in the urea-urease system. It was assumed that the model
developed by Fidaleo could not be directly utilized when analyzing the raw feed at TTU
due to non-competitive enzyme inhibition by compounds found within the feed solution.
The objectives of the feed tank analysis were to determine:
(1) If a mature feed tank is more biologically active than a clean feed tank,
(2) The effect of a pH buffer and head-space oxygen on hydrolysis rates,
(3) If ammonia stripping takes place within a feed tank,
(4) The fraction of organic nitrogen that exists as urea,
(5) The extent of hydrolytic activity within feed tank and
(6) The average percentage of total TOC available for heterotrophic bacteria.
2.5.3 Equivalent System Mass
An equivalent systems mass (ESM) analysis was conducted following the
procedures outiined in (Levri et al., 2003). The purpose of the ESM is to quantitatively
26
compare two systems designed for space flight in terms of mass, power requirements,
stowage volume requirements and any other parameter which may be used to select the
best overall design scheme. A simplified ESM analysis was conducted for both the TR in
the TTU-WRS and the AMR in the PB-AMR system. The ESM is not the final
parameter in choosing the best flight-ready system, but is a straightforward way to
conduct an overall system comparison.
The purpose of this research was to determine the applicability of a membrane-
aerated bioreactor as a gravity-compatible nitrifying reactor for long-term (duration)
space missions. The major physiological processes and biological processes of concem
were experimentally analyzed at TTU. The biological water recovery system was
compared to similar systems at both TTU and JSC.
27
CHAPTER III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The physiological and biological processes affecting bioreactor transport and
fransformation were investigated by conducting a series of experiments outlined in
common bioreactor literature. Bioreactor transport was investigated via hydrodynamic
and mass fransfer experiments, while the biological processes within the reactor were
monitored for a 280 day period during normal operation.
3.1 Water Recoverv Systems at TTU
3.1.1 TTU-WRS
The anaerobic packed bed in the TTU-WRS is a plexiglass column with a
working volume of 2.2 Liters (0.58 gal) and contains 10 mm (0.34 in) Intalox ceramic
saddles as media, providing a void space of 0.58 (see Table 3.1). The ceramic saddles
provide for the attachment of denifrifying heterofrophic biofilms. Gravity dependent gas-
liquid separators (GLS) were constructed to allow gaseous N2 and CO2 to be released
from the wastestream before entering the downstream reactor. The nitrifying TR in the
TTU-WRS consists of two 15.5 m (50 ft) long Tygon ttibes 3.16 mm (0.12 in) internal
diameter, and acts as a plug-flow reactor with a very short per-pass hydraulic retention
time (2.6 minutes for 31 m of ttibing) (Muirhead et al., 2003).
28
Table 3.1. TTU-WRS Design Details
Description
Anaerobic PB Reactor Vessel
Ceramic Saddles
GLS
Tubular Reactor
Dimensions
10cmODX45cm
10 mm
4 cm OD X 20 cm
3.16 mm ODX 15.5 m
Total Volume
3.5 L
2 mL/saddle (660 saddles)
0.25 L
0.12 L
Working Volume
2.2 L
-
-
0.10 L
The TTU-TR was equipped with traps to prevent sheds downstream of the point
where the biomass enters the frap; a mass-flow confroller and an operating system to
maintain air/liquid equilibrium within the tubes was also required. A simplified
schematic of a replica of the biological portion of the TTU-WRS may be seen in Figure
3.1.
High Pressui« Ismatec
Piston Pump C Programmable
lubsterflex Peristalic Pump
fTP PB Denitrification
1 Pacl<ed Bed Bioreactor
(PB5
Tubular
Nitrifying
Reactor
(TR)
Gas-Liquid Separator
Figure 3.1. Biological Portion of Water Recovery System at TTU
29
3.1.2 PB-AMR
The PB-AMR system was designed in the same manner as the TTU-WRS with
the AMR replacing the TR as a nifrifying reactor. The PB-AMR system contains a
gravity dependent gas-liquid separator (GLS) upstream of each reactor to avoid gas
bubbles in the liquid influent. The reactors were inoculated separately and allowed to
operate until the appropriate microbial populations were established. Bacteria taken from
the reactors within the TTU-WRS and JSC-WRS were used as inoculum for each reactor.
During inoculation, alkalinity, pH and trace element concentrations were controlled. The
start up period referred to throughout is the acclimation period following inoculation
when the TTU-WRS feed solution was used and the reactors began operating in series.
The raw feed fiowrate delivered to the system throughout the experiment is 1.0
mL/min producing 1.44 L (0.38 gal) of processed waste per day. The lines between
reactors were cleaned/replaced every 15 days to ensure that biofilm growth in the system
only occurred within reactor vessels. Figure 3.2 gives a simplified layout of the PB-
AMR system.
30
Ram Feed Tanl
(RFT)
Cas-Uquld i Separator b L^S CN2 off-gas] T 3
y . -^ Programmable ( Ivbaerfiex ^ - l j Peristalis
Pump
i k - O
Effiuent Tank Control Volume
Figure 3.2. PB-AMR System Layout
The anaerobic packed bed (PB) in the PB-AMR system consists of a 43.8 cm
(17.25 in) long clear PVC column with a 7.6 cm (3.0 in) inside diameter and is
downstream of an Ismatec high pressure piston pump. The total volume of the PB is 2.5
L (0.66 gal), while the working volume is 1.1 L (0.29 gal). The media in the PB selected
was lava rock (Twin Moimtain Rock Co., Des Moines, NM) to provide a higher surface
area for biofilm attachment compared to the ceramic saddles (Rector et al., 2003). The
packing ratio for the PB is 0.69. To insure by-product gases remained in solution
(following the TTU-WRS design) the PB was pressurized to 172.3 kPa (25 psi).
The AMR consists of 150 non-porous silastic® brand silicon hollow fiber
membranes (Dow Coming Co., Midland, MI) which allow oxygen to diffuse from the
lumen side of the membrane and act as support media for nifrifymg biofilm growth (See
Figure 3.3). Facility air is delivered to the membranes via air cavities located at opposing
ends of the reactor (see Figure 3.3).
31
Facil i ty Air Flow E f f l u e n t
Air Cavity
Liquid Flow E f f l u e n t
Liquid Flow I n f l u e n t
Air Cavit
J a s e Plate
Mei^brane Sheet
Menbrane Plate
Facil i ty Air Flow In f l uen t
Figure 3.3. AMR System
The silicone membranes have an outside diameter of 0.17 cm (0.065 in), an inside
diameter of 0.08 cm (0.030 in), resulting in a membrane thickness of .09 cm (0.035 in).
The gas pressure throughout each test point was 20.7 kPa (3.0 psi). The membranes are
approximately 2.3 times longer than the length of the reactor, increasing the surface area
32
available for oxygen fransfer and providing a increased random packing (surface area) for
biofilm growth. The total specific surface area for oxygen fransfer in the AMR is
approximately 0.83 m /m . Some specific membrane surface area will be lost due to the
contact of membranes in random packing, but this was determined to be negligible. As
with other MABR systems tiie depth of oxygen penetration into the biofilm layer can be
directiy confroUed via the fransmembrane pressure. Several researchers have
investigated mass fransfer of O2 in MABR's and a detailed discussion of mass transfer
may be found in Cussler (1997).
The total volume and working volume of the AMR system are 4295 mL (1.13 gal)
and 3865 mL (1.02 gal), respectively giving a packing ratio of 0.83 (see Table 3.2 for
AMR design details). The length of the AMR is 54.7 cm (21.5 in) and the diameter is
10.2 cm (4.0 in). The bottom air chamber is pressurized witii facility air which flows
through the silicone tubing to the air chamber located at the opposite side of the reactor.
The silicone tubing is attached to stainless steel pressure taps (Scanivalve Corp., Liberty
Lake, WA) that pass through a rubber plate and connect the silicone hollow fiber
membranes to the pressurized air cavities. Although the AMR was not operated under
microgravity conditions (the AMR was not pressurized), the system is microgravity
compatible.
Table 3.2. PB-AMR Design Details
Description
Anaerobic PB Reactor Vessel
Dimensions
8.5 cm OD X 44 cm
Total Volume
2.5 L
Working Volume
1.9 L
33
Table 3.2. Continued
Description
Lava Rock AMR
Reactor Vessel Silicon
Membranes
GLS
Dimensions
3 cm
54.7cm X 10 cm OD
0.17 cm ODX 125 cm (150 hollow fibers)
3.2 mm ODX 15.5 m
Total Volume
0.6 L
4.3 L
430 mL
0.2 L
Working Volume
0.6 L
3.8 L
430 mL
0.2 L
An ESM analysis was conducted on the TR and the AMR to analyze the two
systems as possible long-term bioreactors in space. The pumps, pressure gages and gas
liquid separators used for each system at TTU were identical, and were therefore
neglected m the ESM analysis. For the purposes of this paper, the only important
fimction of the PB is that the TOC removal efficiency is high enough to limit significant
heterofrophic growth wdthin the nifrifying reactors; thus, the anaerobic packed bed within
each system was not ESM analyzed. To conduct the ESM analysis, each reactor was
weighed before and after filling the reactor. The stainless steel pressure taps, membranes
and rubber mats were weighed separately to account for possible future design
alterations. The mass of the accumulated biofilm was considered to be negligible for the
ESM analysis.
3.1.3 Feed Composition
The feed for the biological systems at TTU simulates tiie urine-based wastewater
solution used at JSC for the analysis of the WRS so that data may be dfrectly compared
34
(Campbell et a l , 2003). The PB-AMR feed solution consists of a modified version of
Pert Plus® for Kids "minus" (PPKm), deionized-distilled water (DDI) as make-up water
and non pre-freated urine (see Table 3.3). The degradation potential of the two main
surfactants in PPKm has been previously investigated (Rector et al., 2003). PPKm is a
solution NASA is currently considering for space flight. Currentiy, the TTU-WRS
contains a mixture simvdating humidity condensate (see Table 3.3) produced by the ISS
air ventilation system (Campbell et al., 2003; Verostko et al., 2004).
Table 3.3. Simulated Humidity Condensate in Feed at TTU
Compound
Ethanol
2-Propanol
1-2, Propanediol
Caprolactam
2(2-butoxyethoxy)
4-ethylmorpholine
Methanol
Formaldehyde
Formic Acid
Propionic Acid
Zinc Acetate Dihydrate
Ammonium Bicarbonate
Ammonium Carbonate
Concentration
[mg-compound/L]
260
70
143
52
8
9
15
31
44
14
88
66
65
35
The humidity condensate was not added to the feed solution in the TTU-WRS
until after recycle ratio 20 was completed. The feed for the PB-AMR system, therefore,
did not include tiie humidity condensate. It was assumed that the low concentration of
humidity condensates (A, B and C) did not significantly contribute to TC (0.44 mg-
TC/mg-compound), COD (1.50 mg-COD/mg-compound) or TN (0.05 mg-N/mg-
compound). The humidity condensate and surfactant concentration does not vary with
each fresh batch of feed. The contribution of the two major surfactants in PPK® minus
can be seen in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4. Typical surfactant contribution in raw feed
Surfactant
Sodium
Laureth Sulfate
Cocoamphodiacetate
Surfactant
Concenfration
[mg/L]
81.11 mg/L
71.11 mg/L
Theoretical
TC
[mg-TOC/L]
40 mg-C/L
45 mg-C/L
Theoretical
TN
[mg-TN/L]
0
6 mg-N/L
TC/COD
[-]
12.31
20.64
A summary of the average type and amount of wastewater produced per day for a
2-person crew can be foimd in Campbell et al. (2003). Feed was prepared daily, and
samples were collected and analyzed daily at various points within the system. The
concentrations of each individual compound added to the system is presented below.
36
Table 3.5. Composition of Simulated Feed at TTU
Ingredient
DDI
URINE
SURFACTANT
HUMIDITY
CONDENSATE
Amount (TTU-WRS)
RR20 RRIO
[mg] [mg]
1000
245
1.28
*PPKm
1000
245
1.28
IGEPON
0.60
Amount
(PB-AMR)
[mg]
1000
245
1.28
*PPKm
-
* * PPK minus consists of sodium laureth sulfate and cocoamphodiacetate
3.2 Mass Transfer Experiments
Aeration experiments were conducted to analyze the mass transfer characteristics
of the AMR within the PB-AMR system. Deionized-DistiUed (DDI) water was boiled
and sparged with nifrogen gas until the dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration was below
1.0 mg-DO/L. The DO was measured using a ThermoOrion DO probe and a DO-
compatible Orion pH meter. The reactor was immediately filled with the de-aerated
water with the transmembrane pressure initially being set to zero. At time zero, both the
feed water and the reactor were sampled and analyzed for DO concentration and the
transmembrane pressure was increased to the pressure for each respective test point; test
number one used a transmembrane pressure of 2.6 psi while test number two used a
pressure of 3.6 psi. Transmembrane pressure was supplied by pressurized local facility
air in the Environmental Science Laboratory (ESL) at TTU. Bulk liquid samples were
collected every 6 hours and measured for DO; aeration experiments were conducted for 8
37
hours to ensure tiiat saturation was reached. DDI water was not de-aerated by chemical
means to avoid interference witii the instruments used to experimentally determine the
DO. Values obtained from the aeration experiments were plotted and mass transfer
coefficients were obtained following common practices outiined in Cussler (1997) and
Metcalf and Eddy (2002).
3.3 Hydrodynamic Experiments
A conservative, non-colored substance was desired for the tracer study
experiments so that the biological system could continue to operate normally during the
three-day study. Phenol-red was considered for the experiment so that any charmeling or
radial mixing could be observed visually, but the continuing performance of each reactor
was too important to risk any corruption by outside sources. The fracer selected for use
in the experiment was sodium bromide. It was assumed for the duration of the
experiment that at concentrations below 50 mg-NaBr/L, the sodium ion would not
interfere with reactor performance, as the average concentration of sodium in human
urine is 550 mg-Na/L. The theoretical hydraulic retention time in the AMR is
approximately 64 hours; experiments were conducted for 75 hours to ensure the bulk
liquid reached the feed tank concenfration.
Values from AMR hydrodynamic experiments are reported as (mg-Br'/L).
Samples from the reactor and feed solution were analyzed for bromide prior to
conducting the experiment to measure background concentration of bromide in the
reactor. Upon verification of negligible bromide within the feed tank and reactor, a
38
typical feed solution was prepared with an additional 40 mg-Br/L and stirred for
approximately 20 minutes. The feed was then continuously injected into the system at a
fiowrate of 1.0 mL/min and influent and effluent samples were collected every two hours.
Feed tank samples were collected to ensure that no cross-contamination had taken place
within the feed tank during the experiment.
Two separate sets of fracer studies were conducted on the AMR. The first set of
fracer studies was conducted before biofilm formation and is referred to as the tracer
study experiments. The second set of experiments was conducted following biofilm
formation and is referred to as the port study. The port study followed the same
procedures as the "clean" fracer study, but 40 mg-Br/L of sodium bromide was added to a
fresh feed solution and samples were collected from sampling ports along the reactor (see
Figure 3.4). Samples were collected from the uifluent tank, effluent tank and each port
for a period of 70 hours and analyzed for NOx-N, TN, DOC, pH and bromide.
3SD Port #3
38D Port (¥2
3gD Portal
Figure 3.4. AMR Port Study Configuration
39
3.4 Biochemical Characterization of Feed Tank Reactions
Six experiments were simultaneously conducted on 3 clean feed tanks and 3
established feed tanks (see Figure 3.5). The feed was formulated by preparing 12.0 L of
feed and adding 2.0 L of feed to the respective tanks; this was done in an attempt to
decrease inaccuracy due to the variable nature of urine. Treatments included the sparging
of head-space oxygen within nifrogen gas, the addition of a phosphate buffer and a
confrol. The effect of pH was investigated following the assumption that non
competitive pH inhibition could possibly temporarily reduce enzymatic activity within
the feed tanks.
The addition of phosphate buffer and nitrogen sparging to the corresponding feed
tank was then conducted and the feed tanks were covered with foil and sealed to
minimize interference of microbial reactions or any contamination from outside sources.
The feed tank analysis was conducted over a 140-hour period to guarantee completion of
the major biological activity within the tank. Samples were collected every 6 hours,
filtered, tested for total dissolved solids (TDS), pH, total nitrogen (TN as mg-N/L), NOx-
N, NH4-N, DO, chemical oxygen demand (COD) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC).
The feed tank is not expected to be in operation for longer than 24 hours, but preliminary
experiments indicated that the maximum time required for complete urea hydrolysis
within the feed tank was approximately 60 hours.
40
C'leain Fee<l
Taiilc#l Buffer
Clean Feed
Taiilv#2 No Buffer
Clenn Feed
Taiil£#3 N2 Sparge
Dirty Feed
Tanlc#l Buffer
Dirty Feed
Taii l i#2
ITo Buffer
Dirty Feed
Taiilv # 3
N2 Sparge
Figure 3.5. Urea Hydrolysis Test Schematic
The mature feed tank herein refers to a feed tank that is decanted to 500 mL daily
before adding fresh raw feed. It was assumed from preliminary studies that a mature feed
tank would be more biologically active than a clean feed tank. The effect of phosphate
buffer addition (0.5 g-KHP04/L) and sparging of head-space oxygen with nitrogen gas on
hydrolytic activity were not primary objectives for the analysis. The concentration of
phosphate buffer added to the feed tanks was determined by formulating DDI solutions
containing various buffer concenfrations and adding known amounts of sulfuric acid.
The assumption that ammonia stripping is negligible in the feed tank was observed
during the experiment by preparing gas traps (pH=2.0) containing sulfuric acid; gases
escaping the feed tanks entered gas fraps where samples were analyzed for NH4
(pK{NH4}= 9.1). The fraction of organic nitrogen that exists as urea was determined by
dividing the theoretical organic nitrogen concentration by the urea concentration
41
determined by molecular weight disfribution (MWD) on a liquid chromatography-mass
specfromefry (LC/MS) analyzer at JSC (see Equation 3.1), i.e.,
fu-N = Th.Org-N [mg-N/L] / Um-N [mg-N/L] Equation 3.1.
where:
fu-N = Fraction of organic nitrogen the exists as urea [mg-N/L],
Th.Org-N =(TN-N) - (NH4-N) - (N02'-N) - (NO3-N), and
Um-N = Measured urea concentration (by MWD)
and the average time required to complete urea hydrolysis for a typical feed solution was
assumed to be complete when the TN concentration equaled the inorganic nitrogen (NH4
+ NOx) concentration (implying negligible organic nitrogen exists).
3.5 Analysis
3.5.1 Sample Collection
Reactor influent and effluent samples were collected daily, fihered (< 0.45
micron) and analyzed for DOC, pH, N02"-N, NOa'-N and conductivity (TDS); while tests
for NH4"-N and TN-N were conducted three times a week. All nifrogen measurements
are reported as mg-N/L, and all carbon measurements are reported as mg- DOC /L.
42
3.5.2 Sample Analysis
The NH4'', pH, total dissolved solids (TDS) and temperature samples were
analyzed at TTU using a ROSS probe (Thermo Orion model 8102-BN) and Thermo
Orion pH meter (model 250A). DO samples were analyzed using an O2 electrode DO
probe (Thermo Orion model 9708) and pH/ORP meter (IQ Scientific). COD samples
were analyzed using high range HACH COD vials and a HACH spectrophotometer
(HACH DR/2010 Loveland, CO). N02"-N, and NO3-N samples were analyzed using ion
chromatography at TTU (DX-600 Dionex, USA) and continuous count blank and spikes
(standards) were used every 20 samples to ensure proper functioning of the IC as outlined
withm Standard Methods. The TN and DOC samples were analyzed using a Shimadzu
analyzer (Non-Purgeable Organic Method).
3.5.3 Data analysis
3.5.3.1 Nifrification
It was originally assumed that the rate of urea hydrolysis would not affect
nitrification rate due to the extent of urease activity v^thin the system, and total ammonia
removal rates would be an accurate indication of nitrification rates. Feed tank analysis
indicated that ammonia loading rates vary drastically within the system over time.
Therefore, ammonia removal rates would not be accurate in analysis of the TTU-WRS
and PB-AMR systems. Thus, the percent nifrification was calculated using Equation 3.2
(below)
43
% Nifrification = (dC(NOx)/dt - dC(TN/dt)/C(TO)initiai Equation 3.2.
where:
dC(NOx)/dt = Mass increase in NOx due to nitrification [mg-N/L],
dC(TN)/dt = Mass decrease in N due to denitrification [mg-N/L], and
C(TN)initiai = Feed TN concenfration [mg-N/L].
as opposed to mass ammonia removal commonly used; Equation 3.2 is a nitrogen mass
balance on the entire system, and not the AMR alone. The loss of NOx due to
denifrification was taken into account when reporting the nifrification rate; it was
assumed that the mass decrease in TN equaled the mass production of N2 (g). Ammonia
sfripping was found to be negligible at pH= 8.27 (%NH3= 0.095), which is the maximum
pH detected in the AMR to verify this assumption. The loading rate of each system was
considered so that the percent change values would reflect the true performance of each
biological system. To calculate the true system performance, percent change in each
constituent was divided by hydraulic retention time, allowing a direct comparison of
system performance to be made.
3.5.3.2 Denifrification
Following the assumption that NH4* loss to biomass and ammonia stripping are
negligible, the mass TN loss can be directly calculated by subtracting the effluent TN
from the influent TN. The percent denitrification is then equal to the percent TN loss.
The only point witiiin the system where ammonia stripping could occur is in the effluent
44
of the packed bed, where high pH values can cause the NH4'' to be transformed to
aqueous NH3. Ammonia stripping in the WRS at TTU was assumed to be negligible
because of tiie short retention time in the TR, the low pH (6.0 ± 0.7), and the closed
water-loop operation of the WRS. Ammonia stripping in the AMR was considered to be
negligible because tiie bulk pH was slightly acidic throughout the 120 days (6.0-6.3).
The mass loss of DOC witiiin tiie system can be calculated in the same manner as the TN.
The DOC loss represents the loss of DOC to heterotrophic bacteria.
3.5.3.3 Determination of Organic Nitrogen
The total organic nifrogen concentration will be calculated by subtracting the
summation of measured inorganic nifrogen species (NH4 + NOx) from the measured TN
(see Equation 3.3). The fraction of total organic nifrogen as urea can then be directly
(total organic nifrogen-N) = (total nitrogen-N)-{(NH4-N) + (N02"-N) + (NO3-N)}
(Urea-N) / (total organic nitrogen-N) = fu,o (urea fraction) Equation 3.3.
calculated and will aid in understanding whether the organic nitrogen in the feed tank is
easily degradable organic nitrogen (urea) or other forms of organic nitrogen (see below).
Following the calculation of urea within each sample for a given period of time, tiie rate
of urea hydrolysis within a typical feed solution at TTU can be determined. The rate of
ammonium production should tiieoretically equal tiie rate of urea degradation by
45
hydrolysis. The assumption tiiat arnmonia sfripping in the feed tank is negligible
(5.9<pH<8.6) will be investigated by observing tiie NH3 values collected in the gas traps.
46
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The objective of tiiis research was to design and analyze a gravity compatible
nifrifying bioreactor capable of operating in typical space conditions. A detailed
physiological and biological analysis of the MABR constructed and operated at TTU is
presented below.
4.1 Watbi: recovery Systems at TTU t I
An analysis of both the physiological and biological properties of the AMR is
required to fully vmderstand optimurh operatirig conditions and possible bioreactor j '
limitations. The analysis consisted' of fransport phenomenon affecting reactor
performance, including mass transfer and hydrodynamics. The analysis evaluated
fransformation phenomenon affecting reactor (performance, including an overall system
analysis of treatment efficiency and a biological characterization of feed tank reactions.
4.1.1 PB-AMR
4.1.1.1 Mass Transfer
Three separate sets of massijransfer experiments were conducted on the AMR
within tiie PB-AMR system. The first experiment was conducted at what was considered
tiien a high transmembrane pressure (3.6 psi) |and low liquid velocity (2 mL/min) where
mass transfer was expected to be limiting under these conditions. Following the resuhs
47
more of tiie first experiment, indicating a relatively large mass fransfer coefficient, two
aeration experiments were conductdd at a relatively low transmembrane pressure and
high feed fiowrate to determine tiie conditions required for mass transfer to inhibit
biofilm growtii. The second set of experiments was conducted at the same liquid
fiowrate (24 mL/min) and operating fransmemlirane pressure (2.6 psi). The resuhs of the
mass fransfer experiment are presented in Table 4.1. In both experiments, the major mass
fransfer resistance in tiie AMR was in the membrane. The membrane resistance in the
first experiment, which represents normal AMR operating conditions, was 17.5 times
higher tiian tiie liquid boundary layer resistance (see Appendix A for detailed calculations
of mass fransfer and hydrodynamic! values). This result could be significant in future
AMR design, where bulk DO concenfration can be manipulated by altering the
membrane thickness, as opposed to alternative methods investigated by others (Rector et
al., 2004; Casey et al., 2002) whichli are more energy intensive.
Table 4.1.
1/km
[min/m]
2.1E+05
2.1E+05
AMR Mass Transfer ,
I/kL
[min/m] j
1.2E+04
6.4E+03±1.2E-04:i i
1 L J
ko
[m/min]
7.7E-05
1J5E-04±3.7E-12
Sh#
[-]
35
71
Flux (J)
[mol-DO/sec*m^]
1.9E-07
3.6E-07 ±
The mass transfer referred to throughout this paper refers to electron acceptor
(oxygen) fransport by diffusion through the membrane, while hydrodynamics refers to the
fransport of substrates by forced convection. Although it was initially assumed that mass
48
fransfer would be the limiting factor in AMR transport processes, the data indicate that
mass fransfer is not limiting bioreactor fransport. jEven at the high fiowrate (24 mL/min)
and low fransmembrane pressure (2.6 psi) used during the second experiment, mass
fransfer did not limit fransport processes. The relatively high Sherwood numbers in Table
4.1 and the bulk liquid DO concenfrktidn of 5.0 n^g-DO/L indicate that only very large
changes in hydrodynamic effects will significantly increase the overall mass transport in
the system and that forced convection is the major form of transport; implying the AMR
is not limited by election acceptor diffusion. It is generally assumed that a bulk DO I
II concenfration above 3.0 is an indication that mas^ transfer is not limiting aerobic growth
within membrane aerated bioreactors.
Although the data does not seem to indicj.te a lack of mass transfer from either the
bulk or membrane side, Characklis et al. (1990) rioted that significantly thick mass
boundary layers are formed at low fluid velocitiels that can at times decrease the substrate
concentration at the local fluid-biofilm interface. The substrate removal rate within the
biofilm and high bulk liquid DO concentration wfere indications that neither the laminar
fiow conditions nor the heightened thickness of the mass boundary layer appeared to
significantly affect substrate transport.
I 4.1.1.2 Hydrodynamics 'j
The results for botii the "clean" and "dirty" tracer stiidies are presented below.
The clean tracer studies refer to AMR tracer st^cjies conducted before biofilm formation
and are concerned with general reactor hydrodyiiamic properties while the dirty tracer
49
stiidies refers to experiments conducted after biofilm formation and the addition of an
internal system recycle. The results of the clean flow through (RRO) hydrodynamic
analysis are presented in Figure 4.1. Continuous The data indicate that preferential flow
(channeling) within the AMR was negligible, butj further studies are required to
quantitatively define the amount of preferential flow. The data indicate that the reactor
may be modeled by a plug-flow regime, which is [evident by the nine hour lag in the i
tracer response (see Figure 2.3). Although the trdcer response does not indicate an ideal
plug-flow regime, experimental bioijeactors are ejcpected to operate as non-ideal, or
arbifrary, flow reactors.
mg-
Br/
L]
hmmM
C/C
o
1,0 -
0,8 •
0,6
0,4 -
0,2 -
0,0 i
9
mt9 99 r-
•
•
tv: K
• • ^
• • • J M ^ • ^ ^ ^
0,0 0.2 0,4 0,6 : 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4
Time [hpurs]
Figure 4.1. AMR Hydrodynamic Experimental Resuhs
The port study (dirty tracer study) was conducted in the AMR following biofilm
formation in an attempt to understand ihe effec^ of biofilm formation and internal recycle
50
on bioreactor hydrodynamics. A fracer profile alpng the reactor is presented below. The
data from a port study of tiiis type on a completel ' mixed (CM) reactor would indicate no
change in freafrnent along tiie lengtii of tiie reactor, as CM reactors assume that the
concenfration at any point within tiie reactor is the same. It can be seen in Figure 4.2 that
a CM profile exists, but detailed dimensionless analysis indicates that the bioreactor still
behaves in a P-F manner.
m 1 O) E k
ca J£ C n 1-c 0) 3
E lU a: S <
i?n
inn 80
60
40
20
- J
CQ
D)
f-t..
m CM
4t:
ort
Q.
01
s <
140
120
ion
80
60
40
20
i
I •
i
u
L . OQ JC c |2 •o
ili 11.
o: F <
140 1
120 •
100 •
80 •
60 •
40 -
20 •
0 -
C
•
' ) 1
•
' 2
Time [hours]
Figure 4.2. AMR Por Study Resuhs
CO
120 i,
100 £
80 m
60 8 40 C
20 "•
140 =J
1?0
100
80
60
40
20
0
OQ
O)
F
ffi ^ %
ort
Q.
tt s
51
At first glance, tiie low Reynold's number (from 0.001 to 0.035 ) seems to be an
indication of possible mass fransfer limitation, but the results indicate that the dominant
factor in mass fransport is advection, which support resuhs of the mass transfer
experiments (Sherwood number= 35). To ensure the validity of the hydrodynamic
dominance of tiie system, tiie dimensionless Peclet number and coefficient of axial
dispersion were determined using Equation 4.1 ta!ken from Metcalf and Eddy (2002), i.e.,
C/Co=l/[2(7t(D/ML)] exp [-{\-Qf/^{D/uL)] Equation 4.1. I
where: i
C/Co= normalized tracer response [unitiess],
D = coefficient of axial dispersion [cm^/sec],
u = fluid velocity [cm/sec],
L = reactor length [cm],
9 = normalized time (t/t) [unitless], |
t = time [sec], and i
T = theoretical detention time [sec].
and compared to values in current literature. The Peclet number (ML/D) is the ratio of i
flow velocity to diffusional velocity, where Peclet numbers greater than 1 indicate that
the majority of the transport is due to forced convection. Table 4.2 suggests that the
majority of the fransport is due to forced convection, as indicated by the large values of
the Peclet number (greater than one) for each recjycle ratio. The axial Reynolds's number
52
(Re<3.0) and unitless dispersion numl^er (d) indie ite that the AMR operates under plug-
flow conditions (d<0.01). Ideal plug-flow reaci;ol s with no dispersion have unitless
dispersion numbers of zero, while unitless disppr^ion numbers above 0.05 have slight
dispersion. Significant dispersion does not tak^ jjlace below unitless dispersion numbers
I 1 of 0.25 (Metcalf and Eddy, 2002). Altiiough tiie major form of transport in the AMR is
due to forced convection, tiie unities^ dispersion numbers indicate that axial dispersion
witiiin the membrane reactor is considered to he bw; verifying assumptions made based I '•
on the Reynold's number. All of the physiologiciil studies indicate that hydrodynamics
(specifically advection) dominate mass transport
having a Peclet number significantly greater than
I within the system, which is verified by
Table 4.2. Hydrodynamic Results
one.
Fiowrate
[mL/min]
1.0 (RRO)
11.0 (RRIO)
21.0 (RR20)
Coefficient of
axial dispqrsion
[cm^2/sbc]
9.01E-04
1.02E-03
7.51E-04
! Ujfiitless dispersion
number
[-]
0.0776
0.0876
0.0647
Peclet
number
12
11
15
The results of the mass transfer and hyjdn
can be accurately modeled as a plug flow reactor
advection and axial dispersion is coiisidered to bs low.
•|)dynamic analysis indicate that the AMR
where transport is dominated by
53
4.1.2 Biochemical characterization i f feed tank i
The overall objective of the ieed tank analysis was to quantify the significance
and average rate of enzymatic/hydrclytic activity
reactions
(change and were constant at
sub-objective of the feed tank reactiim characterization was to determine if a significant
difference exists between the enzymlatic activity! within a mature feed tank and a clean i
feed tank. To accomplish this, the data from each feed tank was compared by averaging
all of the clean feed tanks and all of the mature ^eed tanks. Temperature values
throughout the experiment did not s ignificantly <
nature and ctlean feed tank DOC concentrations (mg-j
DOC/L) are presented below. Tabl(; Curve'''"'* yvjas used to approximate rate constants for
each set of feed tanks. average ratd <
(kDOC,m = 0:
approximately 23° C. The average
Figure 4.3 indicates that the
hydrolysis, in the mature feed tanks
rate m the clean feed tanks (koocc T -0025 houi' ). It is not fully understood at tiiis time
why the initial DOC value (0 hours) was lower
analyzed. The vertical line in the p
within the feed tanks at TTU. The first
;han the value at 10 hours for all samples
ots below represents the maximum holding time (24
hours) for a fresh batch of feed at TTU (excluding the 500 mL residual following decant)
54
11
of DOC degradation, and therefore urea
0050 hour"^) was higher than the average
p-i 500
o o Q
I
£ c o n O
c M O)
T3 0) _> o M OT
400
300 -
200
100 -
S t ^ J
• Mature Feed T inks O Clean Feed Ta iks
20 60 SO
Figure 4 Time [hburs]
3. Mature aid Clean DOC
The average ammonia formation
is presented below. The average region
feed tanks (kTA,m = 0.151 hour'')
rate (kTA,c = .00034 hour"'). No si
clean feed tanks during the first 24
(mmol-
rate
much higlji
ghificant
lours of the
was
600
500
g) 400
i 300 E E
< 200
100
• Mature Fee( O Clean Feed
Tanks ranks
gCD iOO
20 40
Figure
100 120 140 160
N/L) for the mature and clean feed tanks
estimated by Table Curve' ' for the mature
er than the average clean tank reaction
amrHioma production took place within the
experiment.
I 60
Time
4.4. Mature
55
to 100 120 140 160
[jliours]
and Clean TA
According to the urea hydrolysis stoichiobetry
ammonia are produced for every mole of urea hy^rolyzed
compounds in urine hydrolyze to CO2, the total
hydrolytic activity in the feed tank isj equal to the
in the feed. Although every reaction pathway of each
unknown, one of the compounds which can hydrblyze
acid but it was assumed that this wojild be insignificant
acid concenfration (4%) in urine. Thus, the numper
mole of urea (DOC degraded) was calculated by
in Equation 2.5, two moles of
Assuming no other organic
(jhange in DOC (mmol-DOC/L) due to
number of moles of urea (mmol-urea/L)
individual compound in urine is
to ammonia and CO2 is hippuric
due to the low average hippuric
of moles of ammonia produced per
the following equation:
MN/C = dTA/dDOC = (TAf- TAi) / (DOd - DOCf)
where:
MN/C = Ratio of moles of arti|monia
TAf = Initial ammonia concenfration
TAi = Final ammonia concentration
DOCi = Initial dissolved org
DOCf = Final dissolved organic carbon cjoncentration [mmol-DOC/L].
Figure 4.5 presents the average
values for the mature and clean feec,
that approximately 2 moles of
hydrolyzed. The deviation between
tanks. The
the six tanks
56
Equation 4.2.
prodiiced per mole of DOC degraded,
[mriol-N/L],
[mmol-N/L],
anic carbon concentration [mmol-DOC/L], and
calculate^ urea values and the measured ammonia
molar ratios comply with Equation 2.5 in
ammonia were prjoduced for every mole of urea
is due to the varying amount and rate of
enzymatic activity within the tanks,
the same manner, as each mature tai|ik
due to its relative "age". It was assumed
because they did not contain significant
o
E
E E
1 -
0 -LT Mature Feed Tanks
The measured urea values were
to ensure that the feed tank reactions
mole ammonia are produced for every
the mature feed tanks produced resiilts
the clean feed tanks produced value|s
is hypothesized that this was due to
in The mature tanks were not expected to respond
contained a different amount of biological activity
that the clean feed tanks would behave similarly
microbes prior to the test.
Average= 1.77 mmoi-N/mmol-C St. Dev.= 0.68 mmol-N/mmol-C
Clean Feed Tanks
2 3 4
Feed Tank No.
Figure 4.5. Moles of TA Produced Per Mole of DOC Consumed
then compared to the measured ammonia values
followed Equation 2.5 (where two moles of
of urea hydrolyzed). As occurred in Figure 4.5,
near expected values based on Equation 2.5, while
near 1.0 mol-NILi produced/mol-urea consumed. It
the lack of enzymatic activity within the clean feed
57
tanks and it was assumed tiiat inhibition of hydrolysis by pH, product, subsfrate and
temperature was not significant in the clean feed tanks.
Table 4.3. Measured Hydrolytic Ammonia Production in Feed Tanks
Tank No.
Mature #1 Mature #2 Mature #3 Clean #1 Clean #2 Clean #3
Moles of Urea Hydrolyzed
[mmol-urea/L] 9.92 15.73 14.48 16.63 8.93 10.33
Moles of N H / Produced
[mmol- NILt"" /L] 25.14 25.79 26.50 10.57 8.93 10.71
N H / Production Ratio
[moles- NH4" /mole-urea] 2.53 1.64 1.83 0.64 1.00 1.04
Table 4.3 is a comparison of the average pH, TA and DOC change during the feed
tank analysis. The results from the experiment outiined in Table 4.4 verify the
assumption that a mature feed tank is more enzymatically active than a clean feed tank.
Table 4.4. Matvire and Clean Feed Tank Comparison
Feed Tanks
Mature
Clean
Average pH
Increase
[-]
2.32 ±0.18
1.95 + 0.36
Average TA
Increase
[mg-N/L]
360 ±10
140 ±15
Average DOC
Decrease
[mg-DOC/L]
143 ±32
100 ±28
The DO degradation rate did not significantly vary between the matiire and clean
feed tanks. Figure 4.6 indicates that the feed tank tiims anoxic within the normal 24 hour
holding time. The sparging of nitrogen did not reduce the initial DO value in tiie mature
58
or clean feed tanks because only the head space was sparged with nitrogen in an attempt
to examine tiie effect of head-space oxygen on hydrolytic activity. It was assumed that
head space oxygen could possibly increase tiie aerobic heterotrophic activity within the
feed tank.
o -
: ^ 5 -^ *-' o 9 D) 4 . E, c 0 O) 3 -i
> X 0 • 0 2 fl) '^ > 0 (A 5 1
0 -
2
I
( T 6 • 1
5 s do Ti T It
1 1 1
f i • ; »
-0—1
-0—1
• Mature Feed Tanks 0 Clean Feed Tanks
-p
0
H-C
H
20 40 60 80 100
Time [hours] 120 140 160
Figure 4.6. Mature and Clean DO
The average COD in the mature and clean feed tanks is presented below. The
NOx-N concentration within each feed tank was consistently below detection limit
(MDL=1.0 mg-N/L) throughout the 140 hour test. Tests indicated that urea and ammonia
do not exert a COD, agreeing with theoretical calculations. Therefore, the COD
concentration was not expected to change during tiie feed tank analysis. The 140 hour
change in COD for the mature and clean tanks were 18 ± 13 mg-COD/L and 35 ± 25 mg-
COD/L, respectively. Although the change in COD within tiie clean feed tanks appeared
59
to be larger tiian the COD change in the mature tanks, it was assumed that neither
decrease in COD was significant. Possible interferences with the accuracy of the COD
test include high chloride concenfrations (300 ±80 mg-Cl/L) and intermediate compounds
formed during urea hydrolysis. It is unlikely that these intermediate compounds would
exert a COD, but little research has been conducted concerning this matter.
r-j. 1400
Q 2 1200
I
o .§. 1000
E 0) Q c fl) O) >« O 400
800
600
i
(Q U
200 E fl)
O 0
• Mature Feed Tanks O Clean Feed Tanks
20 — I —
40 — I —
80 60 80 100
Time [hours] 120 140 160
Figure 4.7. Mature and Clean COD
A response factor ratio (RFR) was calculated to ensure that DOC and COD data
correlate. The ThCOD concenfration was calculated for each sample as a function of
DOC, and matiire and clean values were averaged. The ratio of DOC/COD (2.25 ± 0.3)
was taken from average values for all of tiie compounds found in urine and was used to
calculate the ThCOD. Calculation of the ThCOD by customary methods requires an
60
accurate chemical formula describing the compound(s) of interest. Due to the extreme
variability of urine, the approximate DOC/COD was calculated to estimate the ThCOD.
The response factor ratio is the ratio of the measured COD to the calculated ThCOD
(Equation 4.3), i.e.,
RFR = COD/ThCOD-f{COD} Equation 4.3.
where:
RFR = Response factor ratio [mg-COD/mg-ThCOD],
COD = Measured COD value [mg-COD/L] and
ThCOD-f{COD}= Theoretical COD value [mg-COD/L] (approximately 2.2).
a value of 1.0 would indicate a high correlation between DOC and COD data. When
compared to the mature feed tanks, the clean feed tanks did not show significant RFR
deviation from 1.0, due to the minimal biological activity in the clean tanks (see Figure
4.8). The clean feed tank values in Figure 4.8 signify a random RFR, implying that the
variation in the clean feed tank ThCOD and COD values are due to random noise in the
data. A decreasing trend, however, can be seen in the mature feed tank RFR. The noted
decrease in the average mature tank RFR (from 1.2 to 0.78) is an indication of relatively
high biological activity and DOC reduction, verifying data presented above.
61
o o o Q O O
re a:
0) (A C
o Q. (A O
1.6
1.4
1,2 -ft
1,0 -I-
0,8
0,6
0,4 H
0,2
0.0
i
• Mature Feed Tanks O Clean Feed Tanks
20 40 120 140 60 80 100
Time [hours]
Figure 4.8. (COD/ThCOD) Response Factor Ratio
160
No sigiuficant effect of pH or nitrogen sparging was observed in any of the feed
tanks. Tests should be fiirther conducted to investigate the optimum, minimum and
maximum pH and phosphate buffer ranges for urea hydrolysis to occur in a fresh feed
solution at TTU. It was assumed that oxygen concentration would not affect urea
hydrolysis rates in the feed tank, and results supported this hypothesis. Ammonia
sfripping within the feed tanks was verified to be negligible. The maximum ammonia
concentration in the clean and dirty gas fraps was 1.32 mg-N/L and 1.57 mg-N/L,
respectively, which is below the MDL for the TA test. In addition, the TN concentration
did not significantly change in any of tiie feed tanks (ATN= 19.5 ± 8.0 mg-N/L). This
was expected due the value of the Henry's constant (5.6 X 10'^ or 0.75 atm) for ammonia
and the lack of mixing in tiie feed tanks (Metcalf and Eddy, 2002).
62
The required time for complete urea hydrolysis was investigated upon completion
of the experiment. Urea hydrolysis was assumed to be complete when the TN-N
concenfration equaled the NH4-N concenfration because at this point relatively no org-N
exists. The clean tanks did not reach this condition during the 140 hour duration due to
the lack of enzymatic activity within the clean feed tanks. The time required to complete
urea hydrolysis in the mature feed tanks was 58 hours, 64 hours and 62 hours. Thus, it
can be assumed that any urea that does not break down within the 24 hour holding time
under normal operating conditions but will hydrolyze within the anaerobic packed bed
(HRT = 36.5 hours) where urease activity is assumed to be relatively high.
4.1.2.1 Urease Activity
Research concerning urea hydrolysis usually reports required times of completion
on the order of seconds (Fidaleo et al., 2003). Non-competitive inhibition refers to a
reduction m enzymatic activity which can be recovered if the vmdesired effect is reversed
(ie. addition of a acid to an alkaline feed tank). Fidaleo et al. (2003) analyzed the effect
of phosphate buffering and noted that pH has a significant effect on reaction rate, but a
limited effect on the Michaelis constant; implying that the effect of pH on urea hydrolysis
may be non-competitive. The hydrolytic activity in the feed tanks, however, was on the
order of days. The inhibition of enzymatic activity within each feed tank is due to a
combination of parameters (pH being among the most important) and the kinetics, which
are very complex, are outside the scope of this work. Webb (1966) and others noted pH-
dependent non-competitive urease inhibition by intermediates formed during urea
63
hydrolysis; namely metiiylurea and oxyurea (NH2CONH2OH). Shaw and Raval (1961)
noted competitive urease inhibition below a pH of 6.5 and above a pH of 8.9, while
noncompetitive inhibition took place between pH values of 7.0 and 8.9. Webb (1966)
also noted significant pH-dependent thiourea effects on urease activity. Competitive
inhibition took place below a pH of 6.0 and small concentrations of thiourea
(approximately 5niM) were found to stimulate urease activity. Thiourea inhibhion is
prevented in the presence of cysteine, which is a non-essential amino acid in human
development. It can be seen from this brief discussion that fiirther research is required to
fiiUy understand the hydrolytic activity of the compounds in urine. To simplify the
analysis, it was assumed that only pH inhibition took place within the feed tanks (see
Figure 4.9).
10
9
8 -
7 -
6
5
4
3
2 -
1 •
0
V ^
Competitive Inhibition
P^on-Competidve Inhibition
Conyfetitive Inhibition
20 40
— I —
60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time [hours]
Figure 4.9. Matiire and Clean Feed Tank Average pH Values
64
It is hypotiiesized that the excessive time required (60 hours) to complete the
majority of tiie hydrolytic activity in the feed tanks was due to a combination of non
competitive pH inhibition and enzyme concentration. Further research to understand this
hydrolytic activity is currently imder way at TTU.
4.1.2.2 Determination ofUseable DOC
The calculated urea concenfration was formulated by observing DOC and NH4
data. A brief explanation of the TOC analysis method is required to fully understand the
method of calculating the theoretical urea concentration. The TOC method of analysis
used at TTU is conducted on a Shimadzu TOC analyzer. Following sample collection,
samples are acidified with concentrated sulfuric acid to strip any inorganic carbon
(mamly HCO3 and CO3) remaining in solution. The Shimadzu analyzer then combusts
the sample and measures the remaining total carbon (TC) as CO2. The inorganic carbon
is assumed to be negligible following acidification/volatilization and the TC (as CO2)
measured is assumed to be equal to the TOC. The theoretical urea concentration in each
feed tank can be calculated by noting that one mole of CO2 is produced for every mole of
urea that is combusted within the Shimadzu TOC Analyzer (see Equation 2.5). The total
change in DOC (mmol-DOC/L) during the feed tank analysis is equal to the initial urea
concentration (mmol-N/L); assuming that only hydrolytic activity occurs within the feed
tank. Thus, tiie useable DOC is the difference between the measured DOC (mmol-C/L)
and the initial urea concenfration (mmol-C/L). The orgaruc nitrogen was calculated by
subtracting the summation of inorganic species (NH4-N + NOx-N) from the TN-N. The
65
average fraction of organic nifrogen as urea (urea/org-N) was then calculated. This
parameter is exfremely important in determining the concentration of DOC within the
feed tank that can be utilized by heterofrophic bacteria within the system. The calculated
and measured fraction of urea/org-N for the mature feed tanks is presented below. The
plots represent average values taken from each feed tank. A complete determination of
all of the hydrolytic activity within the feed tank is outside the scope of this paper.
Compounds other than urea in the raw feed of potential interest are creatinine and
hippuric acid. It is assumed that the majority of the hydrolytic reactions in the feed tank
are due to urease activity.
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6 -
0.5 -^
0.4 -
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
I • Calculated Urea/Org-N o Measured Urea/Org-N
-^T «
I
20 — I —
40 60 80 100 120 140
Time [hours]
160 180
Figure 4.10. Mature Feed Tank fu-N
Figure 4.10 indicates that the calculated fraction of organic nitrogen as urea (0.80)
is much higher tiian the measured value of fraction of organic nitrogen as urea (0.45).
66
The final org-N value for each of the mature feed tanks was estimated to be
approximately zero, implying that after 140 hours the TN-N consisted only of NH4-N.
The average fraction of organic nifrogen as urea for the clean feed tanks is presented in
Figure 4.11. This value cannot be compared to tiie mature feed tanks due to the
heightened reduction of DOC v^thin tiie mature feed tanks. The mature feed tanks were
more enzymatically active than the clean feed tanks and it is possible that some aerobic
organic carbon oxidation took place in the mature feed tanks.
1.0
0,9
- , 0 , 8
0) 0,7
<8 0,6 I abi S
O) 0,5 -
o * . 0,4
o
.1 0-3 '•is
u 2 0,2 u.
0,1
0,0
• Calculated Urea/Org-N o Measured Urea/Org-N
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time [hours]
Figure 4.11. Clean Feed Tank Urea/Org-N Fraction
180
In the clean feed tanks the calculated fraction of organic nitrogen as urea (0.52)
and the measured value of fraction of organic nifrogen as urea (0.55) did not vary
significantly. The average fraction of organic nifrogen as urea for each of the feed tanks
is presented below.
67
Table 4.5. Average Feed Tank Urea/Org-N Fraction
Tank
Dirty Tank #1
Dirty Tank #2
Dirty Tank #3
Clean Tank #1
Clean Tank #2
Clean Tank #3
Calculated fu-N
[-]
0.76 + 0.16
0.78 + 0.07
0.81+0.14
0.44 + 0.06
0.60 + 0.07
0.55 + 0.12
Measured fu-N
[-]
0.37 + 0.03
0.54 + 0.09
0.40 + 0.11
0.59 + 0.13
0.59 + 0.12
0.55 + 0.10
Table 4.5 indicates that further research should be conducted to accurately
estimate the average fraction of organic nifrogen as urea, aiding in determining the
average fraction of useable DOC in the raw feed. Further studies may include
investigation of hydrolytic activity inhibition by surfactant and/or humidity condensate
concentrations. The urine within the feed solution compromises an average of 75% of
the useable DOC, with the remaining 25% being contributed from the surfactant; the
urine and soap confributed an average of 233 mg-DOC/L and 78 mg-DOC/L,
respectively.
Three methods were used to determine the average concentration of useable DOC
witiiin a typical batch of raw feed. The amount of useable DOC was estimated based on
the observation that one mole of urea is equal to one mole of non-useable DOC. It was
assumed that the only organic compound that may not be utilized by heterotrophic
bacteria witiiin the feed was urea. Due to the lack of a complete understanding on the
68
hydrolysis of otiier major compounds in urine (mainly creatinine and hippuric acid),
further research should be conducted to understand the fate of urine-compounds in
biological freatment systems of tiiis type. It was assumed that the calculated organic
nifrogen value for each tank was accurate because this value depends only on the NH4
and NOx data, which were accurate for each feed tank.
The "DOC Method" refers to the calculation of urea concentration by the methods
outiined in Section 4.1.2.b. This method is not accurate for the clean feed tanks due to
the lack of enzymatic activity; the hydrolysis in the clean feed tanks was assumed to be
"incomplete" due to the large presence of organic nitrogen (230 mg-N/L) following the
140 hour test. Thus, the DOC Method should not be utilized to estimate the useable DOC
for the clean feed tanks. The "70% fraction of organic nitrogen as urea (fu-N) Method"
was based on the fact that the average fraction of organic nitrogen as urea reported by
Putnam et al , (1988) was approximately 0.70. The initial urea concentration was then
determined by multiplying the initial calculated organic nitrogen concentration (mg-N/L)
by the fraction of organic nitrogen as urea (0.70). The "LC/MS Method" is based on urea
values measured at JSC by LC/MS analysis. The LC/MS resuhs for the first feed tank
were not as accurate as the other feed tanks. This may have been due to errors in sample
collection. The samples were frozen and shipped in a cooler to limit enzymatic activity
during the shipping process. The samples arrived at JSC two days late and were no
longer frozen, but it was assumed that the samples remained cold enough to limit
substantial enzymatic activity. Duplicate samples were analyzed following to tiie
publication of this paper to ensure tiie data from each feed tank was accurate. The three
69
one metiiods are based on different sets of measured values and are independent of
anotiier. The LC/MS metiiod is a fimction of tiie measured urea value, the 70% method
a fimction of ammonia and NOx measured values and the DOC method is a fiinction of
tiie measured DOC. It was expected that the DOC method would overestimate the
concenfration due to combustion of other non-useable DOC compounds to CO2. A
comparison of tiie three fraction of organic nifrogen as urea methods is presented i
Figure 4.12.
IS
urea
m
o o o en
O O Q J j J2 eg (U u>
3
275
250
225
200
175 -
150 -
125
100
75
50
25
O
T
• LCMS Method O 70% fu-N Method • DOC Method
Tank No,
Figure 4.12. Determination ofUseable DOC Methods
It can be seen in Figure 4.12 that further research is required to accurately
determine the initial urea concentration, and therefore useable DOC, within the feed tanks
at TTU. Quantification of the wastestream is necessary in analyzing the biological
system and will aid in overall system optimization.
70
4.1.3 Bioreactor System Comparison
At tiie time of tiiis submittal, tiie PB-AMR system had been in fiill operation for
280 days; tiie first 52 days were to allow reactor startup. The system was operated at
RRIO for 125 days and RR20 for 105 days. The fraction of alkalinity removed across the
AMR witiiin the PB-AMR system for recycle ratios of 10 and 20 was 0.93 ± 0.10 and
0.87 ±0.08, respectively. The alkalinity concerifrations in the infiuent and effluent of the
AMR were 465.0 ± 9.0 and 10.0 ± 15.0 mg-CaCOs/L, respectively.
The pH at each sampling point for RRIO and RR20 are presented in Figure 4.13.
The influent AMR pH was within the optimum pH range (7.3 - 8.0) reported for
nitrification (Metcalf and Eddy, 2002). The decrease in pH across the AMR for RRIO
and RR20 was 0.91 ± 0.30 and 0.66 ± 0.22, respectively. The decrease in pH is an
indication of nitrification as alkalinity is consuined by autofrophic microorganisms. The
bulk liquid pH in the AMR (6.57 + 0.61) may have been low enough to significantly
decrease the nifrification efficiency, but was above 6.66 for 135 of the days during
operation. Henze et al. (2000) stated that the pH within the biofilm may be lower than
the pH within the bulk liquid due to tiie deprotonating nature of the nitrification process,
so it is possible that pH could have reduced nittification efficiency within the system.
71
RBcyde Ratio 10 RecydeRaiio20 RecydeRaOolO
'A
fiJm/^M^ INF EFF
AIVR AA/R INF EFF
Figure 4.13. PB-AMR pH Data
The AMR has been in operation for 430 days, the first 150 days were to allow
reactor moculation. During tiiis extended period of time, it is hypotiiesized that the
bioaugmentation of the microbial populations occurred. The bacteria acclimated to pH
and subsfrate levels considered to be "extreme" when compared to common literature
values. This is indicated by the extended duration of time the microbes within the PB
and AMR were able to freat the wastestream. For example, typical literature values
indicate pH inhibition below a value of 6.0, but the microbes within the AMR were able
to maintain acceptable treatment levels in the 5.0-8.23 range.
The variation of DOC in the influent is due to the high urine concentration in the
feed solution. The DOC concenfration in the influent of the AMR (31.4 mg-DOC/L) may
be low enough to hinder substantial heterofrophic growth within the AMR, assuming that
72
the DOC entering tiie AMR consists of carbon species not easily degradable. To verify
tills assumption, influent and effluent samples were analyzed for biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD). The average influent and effluent BOD, COD and DOC values for the
AMR system are presented below. Samples were analyzed for BOD in the last month of
the experiment to quantify the biodegradability of tiie influent and effluent, while COD
and DOC values represent average values over the 280 days of operation.
Table 4.6. AMR BOD, COD and DOC Influent and Effluent Values
Sample
PB-AMR
Influent
PB-AMR
Effluent
BOD
[mg/L]
361
14
COD
[mg/L]
600
110
DOC
[mg/L]
315
20
BOD/COD
[-]
0.60
0.12
BOD/DOC
[-]
1.15
0.70
Typical untreated wastewater has a BOD/COD ratio of 0.45 and a BOD/TOC
ratio of 1.38, while the effluent of the PB-AMR system is similar to wastewater following
primary sedimentation (Metcalf and Eddy, 2002); therefore the wastesfream in the PB-
AMR system can be considered a high-sfrength wastestream. The RR20 and RRIO DOC
data for all sampling points is presented in Figure 4.14.
73
100
•-r7o
D>SO
o *>
20
Recycle Ratio 20 Recycle Ratio 10
PB PB INF EFF
PB PB INF EFF
AMR AMR INF EFF
AMR AMR INF EFF
Figure 4.14. PB-AMR DOC Data
The TN in the feed tank is composed of organic nitrogen and any ammonium
hydrolyzed; NOx within the feed tank is negligible. The total nitrogen in the influent tank
varies from 320 to 830 mg-N/L. The TN removal efficiency was assumed to equal the
denifrification efficiency following the verification that ammonia stripping was
negligible. The TN data for all points within the system are presented in Figure 4.15.
74
600
350
ffsoo
150
Recvple Ratio 20 Recycle Ratio 10 Recyi^le Ratio 20 Recycle Ratio 10
. &
PB PB INF EFF
PB PB INF EFF
Ah/R AIUR INF EFF
AIUR AIVR INF EFF
Figure 4.15. PB-AMR TN Data
The NOx-N concentration in the effluent of the AMR affects the denitrification
rate, and therefore, the overall system performance. The NOx-N in the system is 12.5% ±
22% nifrite (N02"-N) and 87.5% ± 22% nitrate (NO3-N). The graph indicating NOx-N
concenfration at each point within the system may be seen below (Figure 4.16). A t-test
(a factor=0.05) indicated there was no significant difference between the treatment
efficiency for the two recycle ratios.
75
260
240
220
200
180
_J 160
z '140 O) ^ 1 2 0 X
O 100
80
60
40
20
0
R9cyc/e/feto20 Recycle Ratio 10 Recycle Ratio 20 Recycle Ratio 10
A£.
PB PB INF EFF
PB PB INF EFF
AIVR AIVR INF EFF
AIVR AIVR INF EFF
Figure 4.16. PB-AMR NOx-N Data
The nitrogen disfribution of the various species of inorganic nifrogen in the
effluent tank for RRIO and RR20 is presented in Figure 4.17. The bars represent the
relative concenfration of inorganic nifrogen in the effluent tank of the system, while the
dots represent the available TN in a fresh solution of feed for a given day. The average
concenfrations of NOx-N and NH4-N in the effluent tank were 175 and 188 mg-N/L,
respectively. The graph indicates that significant organic nitrogen does not exist within
the effluent tank. As witii the TTU-WRS, statistical analysis indicated that recycle ratio
had no significant effect on treatment performance.
76
O FEEDTN ^ EFFN02
800 -| H M EFF N03 ^ EFFNH4
Z 600 I
O) £ 5 0 0
start Up Period
20 40 60 [ 80 ' 100
4.17. PB-AMR Effiuent
120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Timje [days]
Nitrogen Distribution
The pH, NH4, NOx-N, alkalinity, and EO data for the PB-AMR system indicate
the presence of a highly efficient biological sy;5tem. The overall efficiency of the system ! i;
is a function of available carbon and nitrogen in the feed and varies with the feed
concentration on a given day. The average feed C:N ratio during the experiment was
1.5:1. Typical high strength and low strength]wastesfreams contain C:N ratios of 4:1 and
3.5:1, respectively (Metcalf and Eddy, 2002); Implying that carbon typically dominates
untreated wastestreams. Thus, the early plane ;ary wastestream to be treated is very high
in nitrogen while deficient in carbon. This isja clear indication that removing all of the
nifrogen and carbon from the system by biological means would be a difficuh task given 1 !, I I '
the wastestream characteristics. H(j)lding kine ;ic rates constant, an approximate C:N ratio
77
of 3.0:1 would be required to hypothetic^lly dehitrify all of the NOx within the system.
Altiiough 100% d<=nifrification is not the goal of the WRS design, this is a direct
indication of tiie fiictor limiting denifrification. Experimental values of alkalinity
consumption (7.2] g-CaCOs required/g-NH4-N oxidized) were comparable to common
values in tiie literature (7.14 g-CaCOs required/g-NH4-N oxidized) throughout the
experiment (Metcidf and Eddy, 2003). Therefore, the assumption can be made that
nifrification is carljon limited as 1.5 g-C^COa of additional alkalinity are required to
oxidize the 210 m J NH4-N/L remaining in the effluent.
To verify that tiie AMR is a highly robust gravity-independent nitrifying reactor,
results from the P3-AMR were compared to results from the TTU-WRS for RR20 and
RRIO. The per-pass HRT for the TR is 4 minutes, while the HRT for the AMR is 54
hours. This large difference in HRT makes direct comparison difficult. As mentioned
above, all freatineat data in the discussion is normalized to HRT to account for this large
variation. The decrease in pH across the nitrifying reactor within each system for recycle
ratios of 10 and 20 may be seen in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7. Nitrifying Reactor pH Decrease
System
AMR RRIO
AMRRR20
TRRRIO
TRRR20
Nifrifying Reactor
pH Decrease
0.98 + 0.31
0.62 ± 0.22
0.95 ± 0.56
0.62 ± 0.34
78
The values in Table 4.8 represent the feed tank and effluent tank values for the
biblogical systems at TTU are all carbon limited. The
the organic carbon concentration in the waste stream,
limited by the alkalinity concentration in the waste
NH4-N concenfration in the effluent and relatively
concenfration. The TR and the AMR at TTU are both
concenfration =10.0 ± 08.0 mg-CaCOa/L).
two water recovery systems. The
denitrification process is limited by
while the nifrification process is
sfream. This is supported by the
low DOC/alkalinity effluent
alkalinity limited (effluent
high
Table 4.8. Average Influent and Effluent Values
System
PB-AMR RRIO
PB-AMR RR20
TTU-WRS RRIO
TTU-WRS RR20
(DOC)
[mg-DO(
331
311
415
465
nf
:/L]
(
[m
DOOefF
g-DOC/L]
20
26
1 54
93
(TN)i„f
[mg-N/L]
412
551
425
520
(TN)eif
[mg-N/L]
268
424
208
302
The percent nifrification, denifrification and DOC decrease across each of the
biological systems at TTU may be seen m Figure 4.18. The percent DOC removal for the
anaerobic packed bed within each system has been corrected for aerobic organic carbon
oxidation in the nitrifying reactor. :rhe averag^ amount of aerobic carbon oxidation i
within the TR and AMR (3.7% ± 0.8% and 1.5% ± 0.2%, respectively) was subfracted
from the total carbon oxidation to describe values accurately. The PB-AMR percent
nitrification for RR's 10 and 20 were (61% ± 15%) and (55% ± 20%). The maximum
79
nifrification (61% ± 15%) achieved at TTl|
t-test statistical analysis indicated tbat the
score=0.66) is statistically significant, whi
critical t-value for the test was 2.68). The
would relieve the inorganic carbon-limitation
design of a WRS for applications in long-i
addition of excess chemicals. Research is I
reduce the carbon-limitation problem in I tiie
was accomplished by the AMR at RRIO. A
>B-AMR vs. TTU-WRS data for RR20 (z-
e the data for RRIO (z-score=4.64) is not (the
addition of external alkalinity into the system
problem, but one of NASA's goals in the
duration space missions is to minimize the
continuing to aid in understanding how to
WRS waste stream.
Percent Nitrification
• PB-AMR a TTU-WRS
Figure 4.18. PB-Al|lRys.
The high standard deviatiori in the
waste and the various factors affec^ng ni
Percent Denitrification
Percent TOC Removal
TTU-WRS System Performance
graphs above is due to the nature of the raw
nitrification and denitrification. The percent
80
nifrification (aerobic) is affected by tiie urea concenfration, ammonia concentration, DO
concenfration, alkalinity and pH witiiin tiie AMR. The percent denifrification (anoxic) is
affected by tiie NOx concentration, organic carJDon concenfration, DO and pH. The PB-
AMR system was operated at RR20 for 125 days with a 55-day operation at steady state.
The TTU-WRS was operated at steady state for 200 days and was allowed to form a
much more active biofilm layer than the AMR. Following the formation of a mature
nifrifying biofilm in tiie AMR during the last 5,5 days of the RR20 test point, the
nifrification efficiency was 58% ± 13%. When the RR was decreased from 20 to 10 the
AMR achieved a nifrification efficiency 9% higher than the TR within the TTU-WRS
system.
Although the TR in the TTU-WRS system successfully nitrified the waste stream
to meet NASA's 50% nitrification requirement, the TR is drastically affected by
fiuctuations in loading rates and requires constant operator maintenance to avoid biomass
shedding events. Operation of the TTU-WRS at low recycle ratios requires forced
shedding events daily to avoid excessive buildup of biomass in the TR, which risks a
considerable loss of biofilm. Operation of the PB-AMR operation at RR5 did not
significantly affect the effluent suspende4 solids (ESS) concentration. The reduction in
nitrification efficiency in the TR system due to shedding events caused reductions in
system effluent quality and was tiiereforeinot considered to be a viable nifrifying reactor
for NASA's water recovery system.
81
4.1.4 Equivalent System Mass
An ESM analysis was conducted to compare the TR and AMR pre-flight mass,
power requirements and stowage requirenients to quantify the system performance. The
pumps, pressure gages and gas-liquid sep^ators were neglected in the ESM analysis
because tiiey were identical for each of the two systems. The results of the ESM analysis
are presented below.
Table 4.9. ESM Analysis
System
AMR Reactor Vessel
(including water) Stainless steel pressure taps
Silicon membranes
Rubber mats
System
Tubular Reactor
Tubing
Mass-flow Confroller (2)
traps
Number of components
[No.]
1
150
150
2
Number of components
[Np.]
1
1
5
Dimensions
[L]
10 cm X 54.7 cm
4 inch X 1.5mm OD
0.17 cm ODX 125 cm
10 cm ODX 2 cm Total
Dimensions
[L]
3.16 mm ODX 15.5 m
Total
Total Working Mass
[g]
9270 1
25
640
160 10.3 kg
Total Working Mass
[g]
705
906.48
62 2.8 kg
82
Accurate records were not kept at TIU on estimated crew time requirements, but
researchers have indicated that the TR requited much more maintenance than the AMR I
(personal communication-Collins, 2004; Jackson, 2004; Morse, 2004). Although the
ESM analysis indicates that tiie TR is more ]'mass-ESM efficienf than the AMR, the TR
experienced frequent shedding events and required continual maintenance in order to i
sustain acceptable freatment efficiency levelis (Jackson et al., 2004; McLamore et al.,
2004; Morse et al., 2004). The AMR requir^ little to no maintenance and did not
experience any excessive sloughing; although some suspended cells will always escape
an attached growtii bioreactor, the TSS in the effiuent of the AMR (20 mg-TSS/L)
verifies that the amount of sloughing in the K M R was negligible. The specific surface
'' • 2 1
area available for biofilm grov^h in the AMR (0.83 m /m ) was higher than the specific
surface area available in the TR (0.41 m^/m^). Preliminary resuhs from loading studies
conducted at TTU indicated tiiat the AMR ii5 oyerdesigned by an approximate factor of
two. Thus, it can be stated that the volume of the AMR required to treat the given
wastesfream is only 1930 mL, reducihg tiie j^MR ESM to 5.2 kg.
1183'
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS
An ECLSS designed for long
require little to no in-flight maintenan|;e
freatment systems into current
capability of being a simple, robust
ready water recovery systems. The
required fransportation of potable water
incorporating biological systems into
reduce nifrogen and carbon species in
efficiency of the PPS.
Current research to develop
generated wastewater is ongoing at
compatible membrane-aerated bioreatttor
reactor within the biological portion
and Thermal Systems Division Water
original nitrifying reactor was highly
unpredictable and required constant
Although the TR is more mas^
indicated that tiie TR requfred much
not provide as much specific surface
(juration space exploration should be reliable and
The incorporation of biological wastewater
physio/chemical water recovery systems in space has the
system that meets NASA's requirements for flight-
potential reduction in cost due to the decrease in
from earth could be immense. The purpose of
he current physio/chemical treatment system is to
an attempt to prolong the life and improve the
robust bioreactors capable of treating spacecraft-
Tech University and other facilities. A gravity
was designed to replace the current nitrifying
o|f the water recovery system designed by the Crew
Team at NASA. ESM analysis indicated that the
;fficient in terms of payload weight (mass), but was
inaintenance.
efficient than the AMR, research at TTU has
rkore continued maintenance than the AMR and did
area for biofilm growtii as the AMR. The AMR
Texas
84
required little to no maintenance, was
excessive sloughing. Research at TTU
given wastesfream and loading studies;
AMR. Results from tiie MABR at TTU
not subject to shock loading and did not experience
indicated tiiat the AMR was overdesigned for the
at TTU Will quantify the appropriate sizing of the
indicate that the MABR is a highly robust and
reactor with little to no required crew versatile gravity-compatible nitrifying
maintenance
The removal of carbon and nit|:ogen within the biological system is a function of
the wastesfream characteristics. Resekch has indicated that the wastestream does not
contain enough carbon for the nitroge i
within the system require both nifroge}n
of the biological system will require
concentrations of carbon compounds
complete removal of the nitrogenous
addition of other carbon-containing
Quantification of the transport
TTU indicated that tiie MABR is a
reactor. Although ESM analysis mdi
detailed analysis implied that the
The MABR was not subject to shock
efficiency at any point during the exi
to be completely removed, as microorganisms
and carbon for cell growth. Future optimization
djCtailed analysis of the types and relative
within a typical spacecraft wastestream. Near
^pecies within the biological system may require
sources of Waste onboard the spacecraft,
and transformation processes within the MABR at
candidate to replace the current nitrifying
that the TR is more efficient than the MABR,
[ was a much more versatile reactor than the TR.
loads or significant failure to maintain freatment
likely'
mdicated i
MABR
penment.
85
REFERENCES
Bitton, Gabriel (1999). "Wastewater Microbiology, 2"'' Edition." Wiley-Liss Publishing
Co. (pp. 34-90). New York, NY.
Campbell, M., B. Finger, C. Verostico, K.R. Wines, G. Pariani and K.D. Pickering
(2003). Integrated Water Recovery System Test. Submitted to the International
Confemece on Environmental Systems. Society of Automotive Engineers.
#2003-01-2555.
Casey, E., B. Glennon, and G. Hamer (1999). f'Oxygen Mass Transfer Characteristics in
a Membrane-Aerated Biofilrti Reactdr." Chemical Engineering Department,
University College Dublin 4, Ireland. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Characklis, William G. and Kevin C. Marshall (1990). "Biofilms" Wiley Pubhshing Co.
New York, NY.
CoUms, 2004-personal communication.
Cussler, E.L. (1997). "Diffiision-Mass Transfer in Fluid Systems, 2""* Edition."
Cambridge University Press, (pp. 12-8$). New York, NY.
Edeen M.A., K.D. Pickering (1998). "Biological and Physical-Chemical Life Support
Systems Integration-Resuhs of the Lunar Mars Life Support Phase III Test."
Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper #9811708. I
i
Fidaleo, M. and R. Lavecchia (2003). Kinetic Stiidy of Enzymatic Urea Hydrolysis in tiie
pH Range 4-9." Chemistry arid Biocheinical Engineering. 17(4). 311-318.
86i;
Finger, B. L.N. Supra, L. DallBauman and K.D. Pickering (1999). "Development and
Testing of Membrane Biologickl Wastewater Processors." Submitted to the
International Confemece on Erivironmental Systems. Society of Automotive
Engineers. Paper #1999-01-1947.
Ho, CM., S.K. Tseng and Y.J. Chang (2002). "Simultaneous nitrification and
denifrification using an autotrophic membrane-immobilized biofilm reactor". The
Society for Applied Microbiology, Letiers in Applied Microbiology, vol. 35. pgs
481-485.
Jackson, A., K. Rainwater, A. Morse, D. Muiriead, T. Rector (2002). "Evaluation of
NASA's Advanced Life Support Integrated Water Recovery System for Non-
Optunal Conditions and Terrestrial Applications." NASA. j
Jackson, A. A. Morse, K. Rainwater, T. Anderson, T. Wiesner, (2004). "Evaluation of
NASA's Advanced Life Support Integrated Water Recovery System for Non-
Optimal Conditions and Terrestrial Applications." NASA.
McLamore, E., A. Morse, A. Jackson, K. Rainwater and D. Muirhead (2004).
"Development of a nitrifying bibreactbr for the treatment of wastewater in long
term space applications." Engineering, Construction, and Operations in
Challenging Environments. American Society of Civil Engineers. 9"' Earth &
Space. March 7-10, 2004. League City/Houston Texas.
McLamore, E., A. Morse, A. Jackson, A., and K. Rainwater (2003). "Incorporation of a
Membrane-Aerated Bioreactor in a Water Recovery System." Submitted to 34 ^
International Conference on Environmental Systems (ICES)." Doublefree Hotel,
Colorado Springs, Co. July 17-22,2004.
87
Metcalf & Eddy (2002). "Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, (pp. 35-112).
McGraw Hill Higher Education.
Morse, A., A. Jackson, K. Rainwater and K.D. Pickering (2002). "Membrane Aerated
Reactors for tiie Treatinent of Simulated Wastewater." WEFTEC 2002. Chicago,
Illinois. September 28-October 03,2002.
: i
Morse, A., A. Jackson, A., K. Rainwater, an|i K. Pickering (2003). "Nitrification using a
Membrane-Aerated Biological R6actor." Submitted to 33''' International
Conference on Environmental Systems (ICES)." Bayshore Resort & Marina,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada. July 7-10, 2003.
Morse, A. and A., Jackson (2004). "Fate of Amoxicillin in two Water Reclamation
Systems". Submitted to Water, Air and Soil Pollution. In press.
Muirhead, D., T. Rector, A. Jackson, H. Keister, A. Morse, K. Rainwater and K.D.
Pickering (2003). "Performance of a small scale biological water recovery
system." Submitted to International Conference on Environmental Systems
(ICES)." Paper #2003-01-2557.
Rector, D., W.A. Jackson, K. Rainwater and K.D. Pickering (2003). "Determination of
the Fate and Behavior of a Coriimercial Surfactant in a Water Recycle System
(WRS). Submitted to Intematiohal Conference on Environmental Systems
(ICES)." Paper #2003-01-2558.
Rittman, Bruce E. and P.L. McCarty. (1994). "Environmental Biotechnology-Principles • • , , !
and Applications." McGraw Hill Publishing Co. Boston, MA.
Ungar, E.K., I. Chen and S.H. Chan (1998). "Selection of a gravity insensitive ground
88
test fluid and test configuratioii to allow simulation of two-phase fiow in
microgravity." AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer
Conference. Albuquerque, NM; June 15-18.
Verostico, C. B. Finger, and B. Duffield (^000). "Design of a Post-Processor for a.
Biological Water Recovery System." Submitted to International Conference on
Envfronmental Systems (ICES)." Paper # OOICES-244.
Weisner, 2004-personal communication.
89
APPENDIX A
PB-AMR PHYSIOLOGICAL DATA
90
Table A. 1. Mass Transfer Experiment #1 Test Parameters
Volume^ Flowrate=F Flowrate=i=
Operating Pressure= Operating Pressure=f=
Henry's constant for 024= Surface Area per HF=
Total Membrane Surface Area= CL (0)=
Membrane Thickness= Membrane Thicknessr
3.865 2
3.6 0.2449^46116
41100 55.33333333
8300 1.12 0.09
0.0009
L cm'^3/min cm^3/min psi atm atm cm^2 cm''2 mg-DO/L cm m
(Metcalf & Eddy)
Table A.2. Mass Transfer Experinient #1 Test Resuhs
Time
[min] 0 60 120 180 480
CL
[mg-DO/L] 1.12 6.04 7.19 7.46 7.49
Change in Cone
[mmol-DO] -
0.594 0.138 0.032 0.003
Change in Time [min]
-60
i 60 60 300
Flux (J)
[riig-DO/min*m'^2] -
0.3818 0.0892 0.0209 0.0004
Change in Cone
[mg-DO/m^3] -
4920 1150 270 30
liO
[m/min]
7.76104E-05 7.76104E-05 7.76104E-05 1.55221E-05
Table A.3. Mass Transfer E fperiment #2 Test Parameters
Volun Flowra
ie=
te= Flowraite=
Operating Pressure= Operating Pressure=
Henry's constant for 02= Surface Area per HF=
Total Membrane Surface Areap CL (0)=
Membrane Thickneis= Membrane Thickness=
3;865
24
2.6 0.176918889
41100 55.33333333
8300 0.92
0.09 0.t)009
L cm'^3/min cm'^S/min psi atm atm cm'^l cm'^1 mg-DO/L cm m
(Metcalf & Eddy)
91
Table A.4. Mass Transfer Experinient #2 Test Results
Time
[min] 0
30 60 90 120 150 180 240 300
CL
[mg-DO/L] 0.92 5.45 6.18 6.69 6.97 7.14 7.17 7.38 7.56
Change in Cone
[mmol-DO] -
0.547 0.088 0.061 0.033 0.020 0.003 0.025 0.021
Change in Tipiei [mm]
-30
io 30 30 30 30 60 60
Flux (J)
[mg-DO/min*m'^2] -
0.703 0.113 0.079 0.043 0.026 0.004 0.016 0.013
Change in Cone
[mg-DO/m^3] .
4530 730 510 280 170 30
210 180
Table A.5. Mass Transfer Experiment #3 Test Parameters
Volum Flowrai Flowrai
e= e= e=
Operating Pressufe= Operating Pressuire=
Henry's constant for 02= Surface Area per H!F=
Total Membrane Surface Area= CL (i))=
Membrane Thickness= Membrane Thickness=
3.865 24
2.6 0.17691$889
4il0& 55.33333333
^300 0.84 0.09
0.0009
L cm'^3/min cm^3/min psi atm atm cm^2 cm 2 mg-DO/L cm m
(Metcalf & Eddy)
ko
[m/mi
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.76E-7.76E-
Table A.6. Mass Trans
Time
[min] 0
30 60
210 300 420
CL
[mmol-DO/L] 0.84 5.04 6.56 7.12 7.22 7.32
fer Experin
Change Cone.
[mg-DO -
0.507 0.183 0.067 0.0120 0.0120
lent #3 Test Results
° ^
Change in Time
[min] -
30 30 150 90: 120
Flux (J)
[mg-DO/min*m'^2] -
0.65192 0.23593 0.01738 0.00517 0.00388
Change in Cone.
[mg-DO/m''3] -
4200 1520 560 100 100
I
[m/
0.0( 0.0( 3.i: 5.i: 3.8
92
Table A.7. Mass Transfer Reactor Characteristics
Mean Hydraulic Diameter= Diffusivity of 0 2 in water (20 C)= Diffusivity of 0 2 in water (20 C)=
Henry's Constant (02)= Membrane Thickness=
0.00751 0.0000197 1.97E-09 3123600 0.0009
[m] |cm^2/sec] [m'^2/sec] cm-Hg m
Table A. 8. Mass Transfer !lembfane Resistances
Material
Polymer Dimethyl silicon rubber
Fluorosilicone Nitrile silicone Natural Rubber
Permeability [m'^3-m/m'^2-mi^-cmHgl
3.6E-10 6.6E-11 5UE-11 1.44E-11 1.26E-11
kM [m/min] 1.24944
0.229064 0.177004
0.0499776 0.0437304
1/kM [min/m]
0.800358561 4.365592149 5.64958984
20.00896402 22.86738745
Taken from Cote et al. (1989)
Table A.9. Mass Transfer Dimensionless Nimibers
Fiowrate
[mL/min] 2
24 24
Air Pressure
[psi] 3.6 2.6 2.6
ko :
[m/min] 7.761E-0.0001 0.0001
05 5 5
l/ko (overall) [min/m] 12884.86 6442.43 6442.43
1/kL (liquid) [sec/m]
12884.06 6441.63 6441.63
1/kM (membrane)
[sec/m] 0.80 0.80 0.80
Sh
[-1 2.96E+02 5.92E+02 5.92E+02
93
Table A. 10, PB-AMR RRO Tracer Study Experimental Results
Time
[hours]
0 0
0.266667
0.716667
2.05
3.76
5.91
7.89
8.066667
9.383333
9.98 11.74
16 20
22.45 22.96667
23.9
24.93333
25.96667
26.61667
28.16667
28.48333 30.21667
30.45 31.06667
31.5
37 38
C/Co
[d-less]
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.123346
0.153309
0.1236
0.198
d.370988
0.509278 Q.631881
0.604513 Q.664127
0.622537
0.641857
0.671465
0.643496
0.689496 0.706677
0.697646
0.677467
0.713195
0.860087
0.87441
Time
[hours]
40 42 44 46
46.06667
46.85
48 48.05
49 49.8
51.16667
52.2
52.73333
53.41667
53.93333 61 62 63 64.5
65 66 67 67.5
68 68.5
69 69.5
C/Co
[d-less]
0.956907
0.921366
0.936741
0.926082
0.816452
0.799856
0.915436
0.81948
0.839112
0.835561
0.84862 0.856082
0.855169
0.827521 0.841485 0.870152
0.864569
0.87264
0.875128
0.880229
0.855606
0.857191 0.862798
0.867713
0.872393
0.876205
0.852078
94
Table A. l l . PB-AMR Port Stiidy Bromjde Data
Time [hours]
0 7
26 31 61
Table A. 1
Time [hours]
0 7
26 31 61
Abe Feed Tank
Bromide [mg-Br/L] 123.8524 121.4659 118.5262 123.0005 119.2901
Abe Port 1 Bromide
[mg-Br/L] 32.4919 63.2405 87.2459 103.3539 121.2417
2. PB-AMR Port Study" Abe Feed
Tank Nitrite
[mg-N/L] 0
0
Abe Port 1 Nitrite
[mg-N/L] 8.3899 12.8561 7.307
10.3102 7.227
Abe Port 2 Bromide
[mg-Br/L] 4C 60 75 96
.6967
.9276
.8529
.9252 122.246
Nfitri
I
Abe Port 3 Bromide
]mg-Br/Ll 38.1336 28.3983 66.4392 91.6729 119.7022
Abe Eff Tank
Bromide [mg-Br/L]
54.0927 52.7639 60.5014 89.0378 105.5734
:e Data
Abe Port 2 ^ litrite
[liig-N/L] I 3.0089 15.6059 13.7911
1 5.6181 0
Abe Port 3 Nitrite
[mg-N/L] 20.4373 13.3699 17.6912 18.6652 4.1076
Abe Eff Tank
Nitrite ]mg-N/Ll 27.3447 20.6151 18.7843 17.8584 14.2596
Table A. 13. PB-AMR Port Stiidy Nitrate Data Abe Feed
Tank Abe Port 1 Abe Port 2 Abe Port 3 Abe Eff
Tank Time Nitrate Nitrate Nitrate Nitrate Nitrate
[hours] [mg-N/L] [mg-N/L] hrig-N/L] [mg-N/L] [mg-N/L] 2.0764 76.4182 120.8404 117.187 129.3026
146.66 166.0791 82.8398 176.5535 26 131.0411 149.7479 139.8491
31 151.4371 163.5029 173.4441 153.4162 174.9908
61 177.8698 254.7194 207.8023 203.7377 182.811
Table A. 14. PB-AMR Port Stiidy NO;
Time [hours]
0
26 31 61
Abe Feed Tank NOx
[mg-N/L] 2.0764
0
0 177.8698
Abe Port 1 NOx
fmg-N/L[ 84.8081 159.5161 138.3481 161.7473 261.9464
Data
Atie Port 2 NOx
[qig-N/L] 136.8493 179.685 163.539 179.121
207.8023
Abe Port 3
NOx [mg-N/L] 137.6243 96.2097 157.5403 192.1093 207.8453
Abe Eff Tank NOx
[mg-N/L] 156.6473 197.1686 172.2005 192.8492 197.0706
95
Table A. 15.
Time [hours]
0 7 26 31 61
PB-AMR Porl Abe Feed
Tank TN
(mg-N/L] 245.6 280.1 250 280
290.2
Study TN I
Abe Port 1 TN
[mg-N/L] 247.8 278.55 251.45 280.75 284.6
Ab
l«
^
)a ta
e Port 2 TN g-N/L] J34.7 78.95 :48.55 271.5 283.9
Abe Port 3 TN
[mg-N/L[ 219.75
293 233.9 276.45 284.6
Abe Eff ^_ Tank
TN [mg-N/L]
249.85 279.9
256.85 215.1 278.25
Table A. 16. PB-AMR Port Study N ifrification Data
Time [hours]
0 7
26 31 61
Abe Port 1 Nitrification
[%1 0.327897801 0.575030703
0.5475924 0.574990357 0.30901654
Abe Port 2 Nitrificatioi
[%] 0.5931307
0.64560871 0.659956 0.670075
0.12485354!
I
)
Abe Port 3 Nitrification
[%1 0.657157573 0.297428418
0.6945612 0.698783214 0.122589593
Abe Eff Tank
Nitrification
[%] 0.612055782 0.704636201
0.661402 0.704104286 0.107342522
Table A. 17. PB-AMR Port Study Demfrification Data
Time jhours]
0
26 31 61
Abe Port 1 Denitrification
J%L -0.008957655
0.005533738
-0.0058
-0.002678571 0.019297037
Abe Port 2 Denitrification
J%1 0.044381107
0.004105677
0.0058
0.030357143 0.021709166
Abe Port 3 Denitrification
_[%; 0.105252443 -0.04605498
0.0644 0.012678571 0.019297037
Abe Eff Tank
Denitrification
J%] -0.01730456 0.000714031
-0.0274
0.015357143
0.041178498
96
Table A. 18. P B - A M R H y d r o d y n a m
time
0.000
0.267
0.717
2.050
3.760
5.910
7.890
12.000
16.000
20.000
22.450
23.900
24.933
25.967
26.617
28.167
30.217
31.500
37.000
38.000
40,000
42.000
44.000
46.000
48.000
49.000
49.800
51.167
52.200
52.733
53.417
53.933
61.000
62.000
63.000
64.500
65.000
66.000
67.000
67.500
68.000
t/T
0.000
0.005
0.013
0.038
0.070
0.109
0.146
0.222
0.296
0.370
0.416
0.443
0.462
0.481
0.493
0.522
0.560
0.583
0.685
0.704
0.741
0.778
0.815
0.852
0.889
0.907
0.922
0.948
0.967
0.977
0.989
0.999
1.130
1.148
1.167
1.194
1.204
1.222
1.241;
1.250
1.259
;(C/Co)exp
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.371
0.509
0.632
0.664
0.623
0.642
0.671
0.643
0.707
0.713
0.860
0.874
0.957
0.921
0.937
0.926
0.915
0.839
0.836
0.849
0.856
0.855
0.828
0.841
0.870
0.865
0.873
0.875
0.880
0.856
0.857
0.863
0.868
(C/cJ 1
1
u 1
1.
ill i |
iJ i |
ll 1
M 1' 1
1
i \ 1
i 1
i (
1 (
K 1(
1(
i( i<
)'( 1 (
i (
r( ];(
; :(
;i(
\M i: ; i
[i
: '.>
; J
.'
1
1
j
c Analy 1 :
!
itheoii i:,3' '
i:i3,,|:
i l 3 ' : M3 ) 1 3 ' : I, ) 3 : i ' !
)l3!i .1
)13| ii )13
)13
)13
)|13
)|l3i
):i3:'
)il3'
13' .
j i3:: : i i3ii :
in m | l3| .
)13 ,
)13 li
H: Hi: i i i ir 1 W : : •
\lt' \\i\ )13
Hjii ; )l3!ii i \u: )U li
1 • 1 ,
)13 )1^
)13
)13
313
)13
m \ •'
i P 9
3is
(C/Co)theo-2
0.040
0.041
: i 0.043
0.051
0.061
0.078
0.095
0.142
, 0.203
i 0.279
1 i 0.333
0.367
1 0.393
0.419
0.437
1 i 0.478
0.535
: 0.571
: 0.727
; 0.754
: i 0.805
0.853
. ; 0.895
i 0.932
0.961
i 0.973
0.981
, 0.991
0.996
0.998
j 1.000
1.000
0.947
0.932
i 0.914
0.885
1
7
0.875
0.853
0.830
0.818
0.805
(C/Co)theo
0.040
0.042
0.044
0.051
0.062
0.079
0.097
0.144
0.205
0.282
0.337
0.372
0.398
0.425
0.442
0.485
0.542
0.579
0.736
0.763
0.816
0.864
0.907
0.944
0.974
0.986
0.994
1.004
1.010
1.011
1.013
1.013
0.960
0.944
0.926
0.897
0.886
0.864
0.841
0.828
0.816
Mean Square Error
0,002
0.002
0,002
0,003
0,004
0,006
0,009
0,021
0,027
0,052
0,087
0,085
0,050
0,047
0,053
0,025
0,027
0,018
0,015
0,012
0,020
0,003
0,001
0,000
0,003
0,021
0,025
0,024
0,024
0.024
0.034
0,029
0,008
0,006
0.003
0,000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0,001
0,003
Sum of Error
1,00
Table A. 19. PB-AlJlR
Q= A= v= L= D= d=
Pe=
0.ii;i67 78
34 ci6
i^droldynamic Dimensionles^ Numbers
500d h
0. )002 7Q0Q
Em
t?2|8§4r
cm'^3/sec cm' 2 cm/sec
cm cm'^2/sec
98
WpEriDilxB
PB-AHl B|OLpG|CAL DATA
^9
Table B.l
Average
St. Dev.
Maximum
Minimum
. PB-AMl
Date
7/28/2003
7/29/2003
7/30/2003
7/31/2003
8/1/2003
8/2/2003
8/3/2003
8/4/2003
8/5/2003
8/6/2003
8/7/2003
8/8/2003
8/9/2003
8/10/2003
8/11/2003
8/12/2003
8/13/2003
8/14/2003
8/15/2003
8/16/2003
8/17/2003
8/18/2003
8/19/2003
8/20/2003
8/21/2003
8/22/2003
8/23/2003
8/24/2003
8/25/2003
8/26/2003
8/27/2003
8/28/2003
8/29/2003
8/30/2003
8/31/2003
9/1/2003
9/2/2003
9/3/2003
9/4/2003
9/5/2003
9/6/2003
9/7/2003
IpHData
Day No, [
1
2
3
4 1 5 i
6 !
7
8
9 10
11 .1 12 i
13 1
14
15 i
16
17
18 1
19
20
21
22 i
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31 ;l
32 I 33
3" 1 35
36 ,
37 1
38 ll 39 1 40
41 '
42 1
:i
ATJOL
ledTink!
pr -7.168
0.i7i
9.^!
S.^' '.
7,82
8J5(
8,3(1
8,6i
7!2[
1
8 si; , 7 98
8 14
7 14
8i81
1 1
1 i 1 i
1 1 1
^ 1 ^ 5 '••
• 1
j
1
1
• 1 j
^ , 5 3
8.H
i.U il7 8.i7, 8,b ' 8,(19 '•
8,io
ih \!h: i7,|7
^,^2
' •
6^9
i '
•
6 66 ;
'i 1 0 ii
!
!PB
Ir fluent
1 ]
1
1
1
i 1
~] "n
1 [
i
1
1" i
0
pH
16.61
0.85
8.23
0.37
16.84
7,07
6.49
6,87
6.65
7.04
7,34
7,32
6,73
6,85
6,79
5,90
6,80
6.93
6,70
6,55
6,01
6,37
6,19
6,69
6,65
6,08
6,14
6.53
5.71
PB Effluent/
AMR Influent
pH
7.19
0.70
8.91
4.25
8,43
8,35
7.58
8,43
8.67
8,54
8,46
8,41
8,56
8,85
8,86
8.57
8.68
871
7,86
8,71
7,81
7.82
7.84
7,93
7,73
7,66
7,88
8,23
8.39
A I U R
Effluent
|H 6^61
m : 8.27'
dioo 6*79
too 6.40
^:78
^62
| , 9 5
131 | . 2 8
iii lis ll f i'
^,69
1: 1 P 1,: |i
i
c 1 5,87
fc,70 16-91 fe.60 II5.43 :5,88
6.^5
6.Q7
6.59
16.60
6.62
6.10
16.52
5.66
[
1
AMR Effluent
Tank
pH 6.57
0.61
8.83
5.03
6.93
6.67
6.31
6.76
6.62
6.61
7,19
6,52
7,82
6.77
7.31
6.40
6,38
6,01
6.12
5.93
5.78
6,12
5,38
5,89
5,86
5.65
5.87
6.03
5.98
. continue
9/9/2003
9/10/2003
9/11/2003
9/12/2003
9/13/2003
9/14/2003
9/15/2003
9/16/2003
9/17/2003
9/18/2003
9/19/2003
9/20/2003
9/21/2003
9/22/2003
9/23/2003
9/24/2003
9/25/2003
9/26/2003
9/27/2003
9/28/2003
9/29/2003
9/30/2003
10/1/2003
10/2/2003
10/3/2003
10/4/2003
10/5/2003
10/6/2003
10/7/2003
10/8/2003
10/9/2003
10/10/2003
10/11/2003
10/12/2003
10/13/2003
10/14/2003
10/15/2003
10/16/2003
10/17/2003
10/18/2003
10/19/2003
10/20/2003
10/21/2003
10/22/2003
10/23/2003
10/24/2003
10/25/2003
10/26/2003
10/27/2003
10/28/2003
d
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66 1 67
68 1 69
70
71
72
73 III 74
75
76
77
78 1 79 1 80 1 81
82
83
84 li 85 {
86 T 87 ,1
88
89
90
91 92
^3
ilf jij ff'iP
1 7.^9
1 ^-T
1 < + 'f !| •.:io
1 - \\« ll :ii 't 1 0 An
'f T
j.ls f-F r r
1 1 p|i
K 4
Kfo 1 7.?2
f ' f 11 11!
P f
fp i slU 1 7|:80 1 7|!29 1 '71162
6|49
650
1 1 •fi57
7177
•e|93
1 6[99 491 1 i
7l,42 1.73
101
6,19
i 0.37 '
7.36
6,34
6.59
6.28
7.33
6.40
6.96
7,39
6,24
1 6,29 1
6,53
6,25
6,17
6.03
6,24
6,35
6,26
6,25
; 6,75
6,30
6,34
6.26
6.62
6.50
6.44
7,05
6,77
6,72
6,88
6.99
7,39
6,09
' 7,83
6.84
7,42
7,06
7.08
6.99
7.74
7,12
7,49 8,32
7,48
6,92
7,08
7,10
6,80
6.61
6,88
6.93
6,95
6.97
7,13
6,84
6,99
6,81
7,20
7,42
7,18
7.93
7.46
7,13
7,49
6,98
8,00
6.68
6.78
,'
613 ;
7.38 j r
6,i4 6.4 6.24 7.34 6.i4 6.^ 7,34
6,^b 6.24
6,
6
6.
6.
6.
6
6
6,
6
6
6
6
6
6
6.
7,
6
t
50 r6 i:i
02
io i& 2il 25
67 24
24
18
59
45 44
98
78
67
6.88
1 $.99
7-41 I
h: 6:03 7,79 1 1
j
5.97
6.55
6.12
6.96
6.57
6.30
7,32
8.30
6,80
7,42
6,13
6,11
6.31
6.20
6.02
6,15
6,09
6,22
6,18
6.21
7.13
6.14
6.20
6,12
6.26
6.52
6.46
6,96
6,78
6,62
6,72
6,97
7,65
5,77
6,53
. continuec
10/29/2003
10/30/2003
10/31/2003
11/1/2003
11/2/2003
11/3/2003
11/4/2003
11/5/2003
11/6/2003
11/7/2003
11/8/2003
11/9/2003
11/10/2003
11/11/2003
11/12/2003
11/13/2003
11/14/2003
11/15/2003
11/16/2003
11/17/2003
11/18/2003
11/19/2003
11/20/2003
11/21/2003
11/22/2003
11/23/2003
11/24/2003
11/25/2003
11/26/2003
11/27/2003
11/28/2003
11/29/2003
11/30/2003
12/1/2003
12/2/2003
12/3/2003
12/4/2003
12/5/2003
12/6/2003
12/7/2003
12/8/2003
12/9/2003
12/10/2003
12/11/2003
12/12/2003
12/13/2003
12/14/2003
12/15/2003
12/16/2003
12/17/2003
j
94 '
95 ;
96
97
98
99
100
101 '
102
103
104
105
106 i
107 i
108 !
109
110
111
112 !
113
114 !,
115 '•
116 '•;
117 l|i|
118 jii 119 ii
120 1 i1 121 h 122 11 1 123 1!1 124 1 f i 125 I'll 126 ll 127 T 128 i :
129 ill 130 [i 131 :
132 T' r;
133 ir 134 Tji
135 M
136 Til i 137 "Pi 138 |l :
139 11; 140 ll ^ 141 1 i
142 1 143 i i
j
l[
• • • '
sit •
8 95" 1
1 7 0^
6 8^
7ii 7,si 8.47
_tL 6r96 7.06
6^8^ 6.48
7 ^
8,36
7.817
• 1 %\
m i l l i [iji
It ' m •I III • 1
ilin jiiii III i ::'.|
lis 1 !•!
7.24 J :ii<: 7,lt Ji II
iiic I ' l
55(.
5 2!'
JlS'' •'\
I . J • l i !
'•Mi\
i i i i i ill ! i : i l ^
1 ' 10 •
15.72
7,37
6,48
6,25
6.49
6.65
16,57
1 6.17
6.44
5,80
1 6,09
1
6,48
7.03
6.44
6.96
6.30
6.52
j
1 5,69
6,65
7,49
7,69
1 7,11
6,68
6,55
7,24
6,75
1
1
1
2!
5.97
6.48
6,04
6,92
6,96
7,19
7.07
6,38
7,11
6,30
6,68
4,25
7.87
7.07
7.93
5,60
6.98
5.86
7,08
7,76
8.11
6,73
6,99
7,13
7,95
7,29
5.57
7.29
6.45
6,22
6,43
6,61
6.48
6.13
6.41
5,75
6.07
6.44
6.97
6.37
6,87
6.26
6.46
5.61
6.62
7.57
7.70
7,03
6,59
6,47
7.18
6,67
6,51
6,54
5,65
6,11
6.41
6,43
6.27
6,59
6,30
6.72
5,99
6.27
6.86
6.56
6.81
6.20
6.52
6.30
7.51
8.80
6.34
7,14
6,21
6.83
6.60
. continued
12/20/2003
12/21/2003
12/22/2003
12/23/2003
12/24/2003
12/25/2003
12/26/2003
12/27/2003
12/28/2003
12/29/2003
12/30/2003
12/31/2003
1/1/2004
1/2/2004
1/3/2004
1/4/2004
1/5/2004
1/6/2004
1/7/2004
1/8/2004
1/9/2004
1/10/2004
1/11/2004
1/12/2004
1/13/2004
1/14/2004
1/15/2004
1/16/2004
1/17/2004
1/18/2004
1/19/2004
1/20/2004
1/21/2004
1/22/2004
1/23/2004
1/24/2004
1/25/2004
1/26/2004
1/27/2004
1/28/2004
1/29/2004
1/30/2004
1/31/2004
2/1/2004
2/2/2004
2/3/2004
2/4/2004
2/5/2004
2/6/2004
2/7/2004
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
Pi 1; , ::
,
' 1
1
1 •
., 1
'. 8,C
8.'!
f-. 1 :• 7 . f li ;,
:
ll 6,ii
'i k' ; 1
il ,8-'^
i i ' iJ i "in '.'••'i M
1 i
" !' 7:1
1
l,i 7 : '
i'i 8 i ' i' 1 !• '
i '&:.
: kl :
ll [7 ; |
1' % ",: si:
ir 7i' i i . 7I '1 ! l
ii 7i.
ii 7I !;
1
!
j .
i '
6
1
i 1
21 li
6 Ci
C'i
ill
.1
Sll
9 7
7i
i6 1
.h hi
!| •'
i'i •
57
1(
1
1
6,39
6.85
7,70
6.73
5.69
6.50
6,96
7.58
6.84
6,25
5,86
7,85
6,31
6,55
6,15 j
;
)3
8,03
6,31
6,98
7,33
6,79
6,46
6,68
7,20
8,10
7,27
6.11
6.98
7,81
8,25
7,58
6.77
7,18
8,70
6,96
7,49
6,95
6,81
7,09
7,97
8,35
7.80
7.94
6,31
6,76
7.66
6,69
5,67
6,49
6,87
7,52
6.79
6.17
5.67
7.79
6,11
6.38
5.97
7:99
6:12
6:88
7:28
6,69
6.35
6,75
6,54
7,68
7,18
6.53
6.36
6.76
7.21
8.83
5.81
6,01
7,28
5.87
6.07
6.26
6.49
6,50
6.43
6.80
6,99
5.95
. continued
2/8/2004
2/9/2004
2/10/2004
2/11/2004
2/12/2004
2/13/2004
2/14/2004
2/15/2004
2/16/2004
2/17/2004
2/18/2004
2/19/2004
2/20/2004
2/21/2004
2/22/2004
2/23/2004
2/24/2004
2/25/2004
2/26/2004
2/27/2004
2/28/2004
2/29/2004
3/1/2004
3/2/2004
3/3/2004
3/4/2004
3/5/2004
3/6/2004
3/7/2004
3/8/2004
3/9/2004
3/10/2004
3/11/2004
3/12/2004
3/13/2004
3/14/2004
3/15/2004
3/16/2004
3/17/2004
3/18/2004
3/19/2004
3/20/2004
3/21/2004
3/22/2004
3/23/2004
3/24/2004
3/25/2004
3/26/2004
3/27/2004
3/28/2004
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
7.5
1
8.0
8.7
7.6
^4
7.8
7,6
i 7,3
1 8.7
1 7.7
6.5
1 l.t
i.(
:.i
i.: '; i I ,:',; •
1 j ;
1 [ • ,
'"' i 1 '
'
i
i i I 1 1
i\
5
1 '!
) i! 3
1 :l s i i ll } T 8
1
1 8' :[ 1
5 [ [
2i ' : 2I ' :
, i 1
7 1 11. l ! 1'
I 1 i 1:
|i I '1;
1 ! \' 1 1
• ' i : 1
•
, 1
1 1
:
1
'• t
1
i 1 5,70
6.23
6.95
7.33
6,59
6,15
6,52
6.69
6,91
8,23
1 6,75
6,49 t
8.07
^ 5,26
j 6,91
!
" 7,19
8,21
!
1
t
i
6,79
6,58
7,92
8,01
7,10
6,58
7.86 7,94
8.10
6.89
7.62
7,39
8,91
5.89
7.36
7,81
8,57
5,52
6,05
6,77
7,29
6,40
5,99
6,4o 6.62
6.73
8.27
6.73
6.37
7,91
s.Ho 6,78
7.15
8.15
5.03
6,50
6,21
6,47
6,97
6,76
6,17
6.38
6.44
6,64
6,38
5.96
8.01
5.64
6,54
6,73
7.81
Table B.2
Average
St. Dev.
Maximum
Minimum
P5-AM]
Date
7/28/2003
7/^9/2003
7/^0/2003
7/31/2003
8/1/2003
8/2/2003
8/3/2003
8/4/2003
8/5/2003
8/6/2003
8/7/2003
8/8/2003
8/9/2003
8/10/2003
8/11/2003
8/12/2003
8/13/2003
8/14/2003
8/15/2003
8/16/2003
8/17/2003
8/18/2003
8/19/2003
8/20/2003
8tal/2003
8^22/2003
8/23/2003
8/24/2003
8/25/2003
8/26/2003
8/27/2003
8/28/2003
8/29/2003
8/30/2003
8/31/2003
9/1/2003
9/2/2003
9/3/2003
9/4/2003
9/5/2003
9/6/2003
R. TN Data
Day No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
/
Fie
fm '. ^
1
s
1
.
I
i : . 1
! ; '
j
• •
l i <
; (
;
i
v l i
LMR
d|ran)c
Tl , ,
5-N/L]
98.5
6^.5
54.0 )3J.4 '•
, 1 2).0 1
90.0
: 30.0 i
'
': i i6p!o 1
' '. 1 '
r ' i
' . 1;
'. '•'••. 't
:'i
l i ' 1 '••'•
i
ilO.O: ii
:. . ,il iso.o| |i sso.o, il i<0,0 1
j('d,o' i! 580,0, i J •0,0, ii
"^0,0' 1 !-0,0 1 356.0i ii 590.0 'i
• ^ j
. ' i .' i ll 1;:'
'•i 1
: i f 5
1
PB
Influent
TN
|mg-N/L]
388.8
140.1
650.0
29.6
250.5
274.7
1 1 ( 1 i
PB Effluent/
AMR Influent
TN
[mg-N/L]
365.2
132.1
590.0
106.7
180,0
270,0
AMR
Effluent
TN
[mg-N/L]
38i7.0
138.7
660.0
108.8
250,0
280.0
AMR Effluent
Tank
TN
[mg-N/Ll
367.2
146.5
750.0
108.7
170.0
160.0
450.0
440.0
490.0
360,0
390.0
430.0
390,0
300,0
270,0
250.0
. continue
9/8/2003
9/9/2003
9/10/2003
9/11/2003
9/12/2003
9/13/2003
9/14/2003
9/15/2003
9/16/2003
9/17/2003
9/18/2003
9/19/2003
9/20/2003
9/21/2003
9/22/2003
9/23/2003
9/24/2003
9/25/2003
9/26/2003
9/27/2003
9/28/2003
9/29/2003
9/30/2003
10/1/2003
10/2/2003
10/3/2003
10/4/2003
10/5/2003
10/6/2003
10/7/2003
10/8/2003
10/9/2003
10/10/2003
10/11/2003
10/12/2003
10/13/2003
10/14/2003
10/15/2003
10/16/2003
10/17/2003
10/18/2003
10/19/2003
10/20/2003
10/21/2003
10/22/2003
10/23/2003
10/24/2003
10/25/2003
10/26/2003
10/27/2003
d
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
1
( :
'
i
•
•'
4
1
60,0
90,0
lj),0
90,0
2j).0
8?.0
j
45,0
1 6i|).o :! 5
5 5
. 4
5
4
5
4
7
6
6
4
8b,0
ojo.o
f 1
ijo.o 20,0
20,0
60,0
;
25,0
60.0
65,0
io.o ! •
Io.o ^0,0
1' 1 1 io.o
,1
1
i
1
583,7
256,5
529,1
437.5
470,7
650.0
629.1
566.7
424.2
574,2
i
1 1
378,9
426.9
i
483.6
416,6
560,0
240,0
540.0
430.0
540.0
540.0
410,0
580.0
345,0
405,0
460,0
1
5J0.O
250.0
51 0.0
430.0
41 0.0
ZJ \\
6^0.0
( 6|o,0
t 5|j'0,0
1 4h ,0
1 1
5|o.O
^po.o
4I25.0
1 4^5.0 1 ll
410.0 1 ^15,0
610.0
230,0
530.0
400,0
520.0
750.0
680.0
340.0
640.0
365.0
400.0
390.0
460.0
320,0
410.0
455.0
430.0
550.0
480.0
410.0
10^
. continued
10/29/2003
10/30/2003
10/31/2003
11/1/2003
11/2/2003
11/3/2003
11/4/2003
11/5/2003
11/6/2003
11/7/2003
11/8/2003
11/9/2003
11/10/2003
11/11/2003
11/12/2003
11/13/2003
11/14/2003
11/15/2003
11/16/2003
11/17/2003
11/18/2003
11/19/2003
11/20/2003
11/21/2003
11/22/2003
11/23/2003
11/24/2003
11/25/2003
11/26/2003
11/27/2003
11/28/2003
11/29/2003
11/30/2003
12/1/2003
12/2/2003
12/3/2003
12/4/2003
12/5/2003
12/6/2003
12/7/2003
12/8/2003
12/9/2003
12/10/2003
12/11/2003
12/12/2003
12/13/2003
12/14/2003
12/15/2003
12/16/2003
12/17/2003
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
' . :' il
''
1, 1,1
il!
:
'
'.! 1
1
i.
, r
740
780
320
580
450
580
57C
52(
72(
67(
515
49C
56(
36(
83(
75(
64
38
69
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
1,0
|l-0
).o ),0
',4
3.0
1,0
r
1( )7
541,7
494,2
637,2
476,7
415,1
460,3
515,0
512,3
235,7
239,2
419,4
500,0
490.0
420.0
470,0
420,0
490.0
590.0
470,0
222,9
210.7
187.1
530.0
490.0
640,0
500.0
410.0
450,0
515.0
510,0
210,5
219.2
415.0
730.0
240.0
570.0
430,0
500,0
480.0
220.0
170.0
400.0
245.1
470,0
520.0
520.0
400.0
690.0
313.5
230.4
440.0
183.0
168.0
Table B.2. continued
12/19/2003
12/20/2003
12/21/2003
12/22/2003
12/23/2003
12/24/2003
12/25/2003
12/26/2003
12/27/2003
12/28/2003
12/29/2003
12/30/2003
12/31/2003
1/1/2004
1/2/2004
1/3/2004
1/4/2004
1/5/2004
1/6/2004
1/7/2004
1/8/2004
1/9/2004
1/10/2004
1/11/2004
1/12/2004
1/13/2004
1/14/2004
1/15/2004
1/16/2004
1/17/2004
1/18/2004
1/19/2004
1/20/2004
1/21/2004
1/22/2004
1/23/2004
1/24/2004
1/25/2004
1/26/2004
1/27/2004
1/28/2004
1/29/2004
1/30/2004
1/31/2004
2/1/2004
2/2/2004
2/3/2004
2/4/2004
2/5/2004
2/6/2004
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
790 0
565 0
580 0
59;
55;
45(
38C
80C
37C
53C ,
551
501
44:
406
4i:.
247
):o
i
|.o.
.0
,0
.0
.0
,0
.8
,4
,6
,5
,6
0 j
38^,7
34^.4 ,
426.7
441.3
361
420
0
4
34^.0 (
j
1 \0i
451,6
11455.4
499,0
1
i II 504,4
1
i
i i 1483,5
469,1
i 303,7
331,9
1:473,8 !j
1;
1
279.6
326,0
232,1
}!
203,8
445,0
490,0
490.0
470,0
450,0
310,0
350,0
560,0
288.3
318,7
218,7
435,0
450 0
495.0
500.0
480.0
470.0
300,0
330,0
470,0
271,4
316,6
220,4
198 9
465 0
505 0
510.0
475,0
460,0
310,0
440,0
400,0
335.0
466.6
406.6
356.6
299.1
325.8
213.2
286.3
269,3
309.0
321,2
261,5
301.3
213.1
. continue(
2/7/2004
2/8/2004
2/9/2004
2/10/2004
2/11/2004
2/12/2004
2/13/2004
2/14/2004
2/15/2004
2/16/2004
2/17/2004
2/18/2004
2/19/2004
2/20/2004
2/21/2004
2/22/2004
2/23/2004
2/24/2004
2/25/2004
2/26/2004
2/27/2004
2/28/2004
2/29/2004
3/1/2004
3/2/2004
3/3/2004
3/4/2004
3/5/2004
3/6/2004
3/7/2004
3/8/2004
3/9/2004
3/10/2004
3/11/2004
3/12/2004
3/13/2004
3/14/2004
3/15/2004
3/16/2004
3/17/2004
3/18/2004
3/19/2004
3/20/2004
3/21/2004
3/22/2004
3/23/2004
3/24/2004
3/25/2004
3/26/2004
3/27/2004
1
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
!, 1
3
, 3
1
1 «
1 3 •3
3
j <
'' (
il 'li
l i •
'I: •
i.
;
^ [
ill 1
1
,
'
'
i I I
i
24 2
38 1
69 4
33 0,
8815
4312
4815
881:6
92|,5
09,5
87,8
li.i
Ml
i 1 r i r i : l ; . i l l 1
1,1
;i
10 9
214,4
287,0
232.6
350.6
!310.3
256.4
364.3
403,3
1131,1
[
203,3
288,5
224,6
323,9
301,3
249,2
330,5
367.8
117,7
203,5
284.9
219.0
332.5
302,6
247,8
331.6
372.8
116.5
208,8
288.6
219.1
214.0
290.4
254.2
279.6
253.0
275.4
372.6
305.6
136.0
Table B.3
Average
St. Dev.
Maximum
Minimum
PB-AMl
Date
7/28/2003
7/29/2003
7/30/2003
7/31/2003
8/1/2003
8/2/2003
8/3/2003
8/4/2003
8/5/2003
8/6/2003
8/7/2003
8/8/2003
8/9/2003
8/10/2003
8/11/2003
8/12/2003
8/13/2003
8/14/2003
8/15/2003
8/16/2003
8/17/2003
8/18/2003
8/19/2003
8/20/2003
8/21/2003
8/22/2003
8/23/2003
8/24/2003
8/25/2003
8/26/2003
8/27/2003
8/28/2003
8/29/2003
8/30/2003
8/31/2003
9/1/2003
9/2/2003
9/3/2003
9/4/2003
9/5/2003
9/6/2003
9/7/2003
I Alkalinity Data
Day No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
AMR
Feed Tai
1
ni
AlkalitiiW [mgJ
CaC03/L]
464.23
219.72
930.0C
50.00
; , 1 ',
1
, i ' i 1
i!
i
, 1 :
,!
1
1
i
:
: '• •'. •]
i
• . i 1 |. ; '1 1
?i Influent
Alkalinity [mg-
CaC03/Ll
63.32
7 i ^8
326l40
2.33
j
1
i
il ; 1
i
:
i ' i
''
1 ,1
1 :i : \
: i
110
1
PB Effluent/
AMR Influent
Alkalinity [mg-
CaC03/L]
107.19
92.40
350.00
35.00
AMR
Effluent
Alkalinity [mg-
CaC03/Ll
55.28
83.52
325.00
5.00
AMR
Effluent Tank
Alkalinity [mg-
CaC03/L]
48.70
75.60
275.00
7.50
Table B.3. continued 9/9/2003
9/10/2003
9/11/2003
9/12/2003
9/13/2003
9/14/2003
9/15/2003
9/16/2003
9/17/2003
9/18/2003
9/19/2003
9/20/2003
9/21/2003
9/22/2003
9/23/2003
9/24/2003
9/25/2003
9/26/2003
9/27/2003
9/28/2003
9/29/2003
9/30/2003
10/1/2003
10/2/2003
10/3/2003
10/4/2003
10/5/2003
10/6/2003
10/7/2003
10/8/2003
10/9/2003
10/10/2003
10/11/2003
10/12/2003
10/13/2003
10/14/2003
10/15/2003
10/16/2003
10/17/2003
10/18/2003
10/19/2003
10/20/2003
10/21/2003
10/22/2003
10/23/2003
10/24/2003
10/25/2003
10/26/2003
10/27/2003
10/28/2003
44
45
46
47 48
49
50
51
52
53 54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73 74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
930.001 67|23 80.00
530.1 ,00
647 5o:
450 30| 260 )0 245
845
420,
520.
290.30
•9 .03 60,00
;9I,75 65,00
1815 50,00
30 ii.i3 50.00
30 68.03 85.00
30 24.36 35.00
00 :i8,56 50,00
355 ,00
370 00
715
523
448
449
:!0.68 57.50
:!3.25 70.00
1)0.63 120,00
00
21 '?2,95
24,40
105,00
00 20,90
o6
25,00
15.00
10,00
7,50
15.00
30.00
5.00
15.00
7.50
17.50
35,00
62,50
140:12 242,00 125.00
25.00
20,00
17,50
7.50
25.00
10.00
70.00
15.00
15,00
10.00
10.00
25.00
275,00
45.00
202.50
225.00
111
Table B.3 . continue 10/30/2003
10/31/2003
11/1/2003
11/2/2003
11/3/2003
11/4/2003
11/5/2003
11/6/2003
11/7/2003
11/8/2003
11/9/2003
11/10/2003
11/11/2003
11/12/2003
11/13/2003
11/14/2003
11/15/2003
11/16/2003
11/17/2003
11/18/2003
11/19/2003
11/20/2003
11/21/2003
11/22/2003
11/23/2003
11/24/2003
11/25/2003
11/26/2003
11^7/2003
11/28/2003
11/29/2003
11/30/2003
12/1/2003
12/2/2003
12/3/2003
12/4/2003
12/5/2003
12/6/2003
12/7/2003
12/8/2003
12/9/2003
12/10/2003
12/11/2003
12/12/2003
12/13/2003
12/14/2003
12/15/2003
12/16/2003
12/17/2003
12/18/2003
d 95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
843.00 650.0(|
168,0(i
i 395,00
423.0(1)
355.00
50.od 260.00
1 i
i
!
i
i
39
87
7;
42
34
•33 .33
84
.^6
,C4
325,}j0
2
2d
I
112
3P
..50
110.00
50.00
50.00
350.00
300.00
60.00
25.00
15.00
325.00
200.00
17 50
17 50
7 50
10.00
10,00
25,00
35.00
Table B .3. continu< 12/19/2003
12/20/2003
12/21/2003
12/22/2003
12/23/2003
12/24/2003
12/25/2003
12/26/2003
12/27/2003
12/28/2003
12/29/2003
12/30/2003
12/31/2003
1/1/2004
1/2/2004
1/3/2004
1/4/2004
1/5/2004
1/6/2004
1/7/2004
1/8/2004
1/9/2004
1/10/2004
1/11/2004
1/12/2004
1/13/2004
1/14/2004
1/15/2004
1/16/2004
1/17/2004
1/18/2004
1/19/2004
1/20/2004
1/21/2004
1/22/2004
1/23/2004
1/24/2004
1/25/2004
1/26/2004
1/27/2004
1/28/2004
1/29/2004
1/30/2004
1/31/2004
2/1/2004
2/2/2004
2/3/2004
2/4/2004
2/5/2004
id 145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
II
:
1
1
1
1
i 1
1
1
1 i
\ 1
i i
' 1
i 1 :' i
1
i i ' 1
i . ' '
i •
i 1
1
1 j
. i
' .
J
•
ll
1 I
1'
• '
j
1
j
113
continued 2/7/2004
2/8/2004
2/9/2004
2/10/2004
2/11/2004
2/12/2004
2/13/2004
2/14/2004
2/15/2004
2/16/2004
2/17/2004
2/18/2004
2/19/2004
2/20/2004
2/21/2004
2/22/2004
2/23/2004
2/24/2004
2/25/2004
2/26/2004
2/27/2004
2/28/2004
2/29/2004
3/1/2004
3/2/2004
3/3/2004
3/4/2004
3/5/2004
3/6/2004
3/7/2004
3/8/2004
3/9/2004
3/10/2004
3/11/2004
3/12/2004
3/13/2004
3/14/2004
3/15/2004
3/16/2004
3/17/2004
3/18/2004
3/19/2004
3/20/2004
3/21/2004
3/22/2004
3/23/2004
3/24/2004
3/25/2004
3/26/2004
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
ii t
••<
_J il i
i 1
1
i ! !
i
ii |l
1
i
'
1 1
1
1 i
1 1 1 i 1 l i
•
• 1
1
il
! i
i
1 1 1 :i
i, Ii I
: 1
ii i ' ••
i
j
—1 1
|i
)
-
i
i
11 [
Table B.4.
Average
St. Dev.
Minimum
PB-AMR
Date
Maximum
7/28/2003
7/29/2003
7/30/2003
7/31/2003
8/1/2003
8/2/2003
8/3/2003
8/4/2003
8/5/2003
8/6/2003
8/7/2003
8/8/2003
8/9/2003
8/10/2003
8/11/2003
8/12/2003
8/13/2003
8/14/2003
8/15/2003
8/16/2003
8/17/2003
8/18/2003
8/19/2003
8/20/2003
8/21/2003
8/22/2003
8/23/2003
8/24/2003
8/25/2003
8/26/2003
8/27/2003
8/28/2003
8/29/2003
8/30/2003
8/31/2003
9/1/2003
9/2/2003
9/3/2003
9/4/2003
9/5/2003
9/6/2003
TOC Data
Day No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
i ANjIR
Feed jTank
Tqc [mg-TpC/L]
316157 1 125[,02
8051.00
86.75
J
:
263;:30
255.30
: l'
t •
!
538.30
677.70
43');. 10
251,80
531.00
211.60
26;,50
147,00
179,00
401.90
714,00
351,40
|.
11
I
i i
1 i f
PB
jjifluent
ITGC
lfiii;-TOC/L]
, i
, ;
II
ll
j '
'
li i:
1,
j
'
i'
;
5;
41.53
18.41
[21.56
9.84
PB Effluent/
AMR Influent
TOC
[mg-TOC/L]
30.32
15.43
86.30
4.65
59.90
AMR
Effluent
TOC
[mg-TOC/L]
23.35
11.18
55.00
0.60
AMR
Effluent Tank
TOC
[mg-TOC/L]
21.62
13.93
77.40
1.00
9.80
9.95
14.85
6.35
7.45
0.00
2.45
2.25
13.90
2.55
0.00
3.80
9,75
Table B.4. continued 9/8/2003
9/9/2003
9/10/2003
9/11/2003
9/12/2003
9/13/2003
9/14/2003
9/15/2003
9/16/2003
9/17/2003
9/18/2003
9/19/2003
9/20/2003
9/21/2003
9/22/2003
9/23/2003
9/24/2003
9/25/2003
9/26/2003
9/27/2003
9/28/2003
9/29/2003
9/30/2003
10/1/2003
10/2/2003
10/3/2003
10/4/2003
10/5/2003
10/6/2003
10/7/2003
10/8/2003
10/9/2003
10/10/2003
10/11/2003
10/12/2003
10/13/2003
10/14/2003
10/15/2003
10/16/2003
10/17/2003
10/18/2003
10/19/2003
10/20/2003
10/21/2003
10/22/2003
10/23/2003
10/24/2003
10/25/2003
10/26/2003
10/27/2003
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
275.20
284.170
290,40
298:50
50dj60
39(|i60
533:10
34i;70
368:80
386;90
1
169l70
I, 356i,00
1 228:00
348.50
153:40
275.60
137,03
1'
313,70
31030
397.20 1'
432,70
380,14
45b,29
767,80
40^,30
316.80
11.50
35.47
70.66
68.59
41,02
46,14 i
, 55.23
53,01
37,68
26,08
23,13
30.51
41.94
16,55
25,95
38,66
22,73
50,32
58.28
1
is.is u - - L
9,60
4,65
37,50
65,45
39,85
32,65
44,20
51,23
28.05
24.98
21,00
28,90
38.60
13,95
17,25
34.29
21.85
34.30
45.30
23.40
12.70
i55.00
45,85
,26,30
30.35
,39.00
47.30
22.10
16.20
7,20
24.50
30.50
10.65
11.87
25.36
4.40
31.60
41.10
21.40
1
22.35
10.75
20.20
22,70
2,85
34.15
26.20
29,60
39,70
77,40
27,70
17,86
34.10
12.55
9.55
10.70
4.55
10.35
3.07
4.90
27.00
15.59
29.55
27.25
54.10
12.35
116
Table B.4. continued 10/29/2003
10/30/2003
10/31/2003
11/1/2003
11/2/2003
11/3/2003
11/4/2003
11/5/2003
11/6/2003
11/7/2003
11/8/2003
11/9/2003
11/10/2003
11/11/2003
11/12/2003
11/13/2003
11/14/2003
11/15/2003
11/16/2003
11/17/2003
11/18/2003
11/19/2003
11/20/2003
11/21/2003
11/22/2003
11/23/2003
11/24/2003
11/25/2003
11/26/2003
11/27/2003
11/28/2003
11/29/2003
11/30/2003
12/1/2003
12/2/2003
12/3/2003
12/4/2003
12/5/2003
12/6/2003
12/7/2003
12/8/2003
12/9/2003
12/10/2003
12/11/2003
12/12/2003
12/13/2003
12/14/2003
12/15/2003
12/16/2003
12/17/2003
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
306,66
313.00
1
28^.00
305.20
217,10
>19.00
50d.50
1
^2.60
192.56
:
222.00
186.00
396,50
15^,50
285,59
2- 9,30 '
i • ,
86,75
196,90 1
140,95
535,50
'
369,90
273.70 ;
19.56
23.02
i 59.25
36,37
10,93
34,70
i6.9l
32,77
j
29,48
47,48
37.15
30,50
9,84
22,49
13,20
12.50
47,00
31,45
4,70
31,80
21.56
27,05
20,80
46.59
16.65
13.22
10.49
5.20
10.00
36.75
13.65
0.60
27,30
20.76
20,40
17,25
45,56
12.76
13.89
10.32
10.20
28 65
28.20
10.00
9.75
13,20
41.10
40,55
4,24
1.68
7.52
3.94
12.93
24.10
30,70
13.80
34,80
1.00
11.94
10,32
27,66
22.46
30.80
14.07
11.80
117
1 continued 12/18/2003 144
12/19/2003
12/20/2003
12/21/2003
12/22/2003
12/23/2003
12/24/2003
12/25/2003
12/26/2003
12/27/2003
12/28/2003
12/29/2003
12/30/2003
12/31/2003
1/1/2004
1/2/2004
1/3/2004
1/4/2004
1/5/2004
1/6/2004
1/7/2004
1/8/2004
1/9/2004
1/10/2004
1/11/2004
1/12/2004
1/13/2004
1/14/2004
1/15/2004
1/16/2004
1/17/2004
1/18/2004
1/19/2004
1/20/2004
1/21/2004
1/22/2004
1/23/2004
1/24/2004
1/25/2004
1/26/2004
1/27/2004
1/28/2004
1/29/2004
1/30/2004
1/31/2004
2/1/2004
2/2/2004
2/3/2004
2/4/2004
2/5/2004
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153 154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
260,54
288.50
348,50
275.40
379,60
354,20
390,40
305.60 1
336.00
347,00
346,35
372,60
367.80
313,20
338.50
324.60
308,19
124,50
244,85
152,50
308,00
3^2.40
323.12
322.78
—1
,35,99 1 ,|
1
3i7.73 '
4il.28 1
314.31 ,! 3'8.29
36.50
ii 4d,72
i ii'ii 1 .
1147.90
i i i
39,51
i 43.45
37,70 [
50,36 i
39,27
40,40
45,35
]
1
i 1
1
i. . i I i ; 1
' 1 : i
11 ;
r i
1
6,49
30.10
41,60
30,82
31,40
30,60
28.73
31.12
26.72
41,33
30,42
30,50
24,90
38,97
24,19
28,08
36,94
65,80
i
121.20
|25.00 1
\
75,46
126,24
'22.51
121,59
i20,95
123,60
135,29
! 25,00 1 ' •
128.59
1 122,59
34.59
23,19
1 27.05
31.00
18.92
9.77 9 77
24 95
24 26
21 29
20 16
19 97
27.29
34.80
23.90
25,80
22,64
23,90
21,89
26.30
29.27
19.40
17,55
18.21
17,24
15,29
12,80
18,60
16.81
17.37
118
. continued 2/6/2004
2/7/2004
2/8/2004
2/9/2004
2/10/2004
2/11/2004
2/12/2004
2/13/2004
2/14/2004
2/15/2004
2/16/2004
2/17/2004
2/18/2004
2/19/2004
2/20/2004
2/21/2004
2/22/2004
2/23/2004
2/24/2004
2/25/2004
2/26/2004
2/27/2004
2/28/2004
2/29/2004
3/1/2004
3/2/2004
3/3/2004
3/4/2004
3/5/2004
3/6/2004
3/7/2004
3/8/2004
3/9/2004
3/10/2004
3/11/2004
3/12/2004
3/13/2004
3/14/2004
3/15/2004
3/16/2004
3/17/2004
3/18/2004
3/19/2004
3/20/2004
3/21/2004
3/22/2004
3/23/2004
3/24/2004
3/25/2004
3/26/2004
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
1 218
219
1 220
221
1 222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
3
3
ll
3
5
1
2
1
2
5
i
•;
17,46
, 82,66 ii
1 • 1 44,85 • : ll
08,00
57,20
57.00
88.20
98.50
32.50
05,00
80,77 i
i
~ i
1
1 [
'f
>
1
- . 1
4 4 . 2 3
i ,1 1
1 ,1 i .
1 48.93 i! 1 ;
i ' •
66,76
30,98
39,17
,36.88
46.06
72.13
121.56
66,72
9
33,91
86.30
29.40
25.40
23.12
26.10
22.40
28.10
82.66
41,26
17,03
19,4^
22.78 I8.4I3
17.46
21.80
20.9b !
26.24 1
53.44
35.42 j
i
1
18.49
14.00
18,29
12.81
17,37
18,49
24,00
18.29
19,86
18.63
48.38
34.71
Table 8.5.
Average
St. Dev.
Maximum
Minimum
PB-AMI
Date
7/28/2003 7/29/2003
7/30/2003
7/31/2003
8/1/2003
8/2/2003
8/3/2003
8/4/2003
8/5/2003
8/6/2003
8/7/2003
8/8/2003
8/9/2003
8/10/2003
8/11/2003
8/12/2003
8/13/2003
8/14/2003
8/15/2003
8/16/2003
8/17/2003
8/18/2003
8/19/2003
8/20/2003
8/21/2003
8/22/2003
8/23/2003
8/24/2003
8/25/2003
8/26/2003
8/27/2003
8/28/2003
8/29/2003
8/30/2003
8/31/2003
9/1/2003
9/2/2003
9/3/2003
9/4/2003
I TA Data
|Day No,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
, 36
37
38
39
I
i
:W Fe^dTank
[rt
iTA
5-N/L]
ilt7.10 I
: i
;
: 4 i: 3
:
2^71 S9.20 1.28
si.60
1 1 i h
94.20
I
1 1
I 1
; 1
! "!— ; ;
11 ' ,
1
1
46.00 ^ .78
50.84
08.49
d!6.35
59,26
|!i22,48
,:
•
1719,34 fel7,63 ^3,76
il.91
sis ,28 1
12
i
i ;
f<i !l
li
if
II
;
J
1 • 1
0
PB
fluent
TA
g-N/Ll
08.42
)7.16 37.88 57.97
72.46
PB Effluent/
AMR Influent
TA
[mg-N/L]
203.84
100.90 460.44 50.70
60.90
!
AMR 7
Effluint
1^
[mg-N/L] — ^ - ^ 1 '
202.51
102.43 569.47 46.' 6
1
1
161.30
1
'\
1
i
1
AMR Effluent
Tank
TA
fmg-N/L]
188.72
80.35 362.29 52.64
119,80
103,80
253.03
274.09
294.86
236.85
269.37
172,61
198.37
152.30
141,58
164.41
120.23
142.57
Table B.S. continued 9/8/2003
9/9/2003
9/10/2003
9/11/2003
9/12/2003
9/13/2003
9/14/2003
9/15/2003
9/16/2003
9/17/2003
9/18/2003
9/19/2003
9/20/2003
9/21/2003
9/22/2003
9/23/2003
9/24/2003
9/25/2003
9/26/2003
9/27/2003
9/28/2003
9/29/2003
9/30/2003
10/1/2003
10/2/2003
10/3/2003
10/4/2003
10/5/2003
10/6/2003
10/7/2003
10/8/2003
10/9/2003
10/10/2003
10/11/2003
10/12/2003
10/13/2003
10/14/2003
10/15/2003
10/16/2003
10/17/2003
10/18/2003
10/19/2003
10/20/2003
10/21/2003
10/22/2003
10/23/2003
10/24/2003
10/25/2003
10/26/2003
1 10/27/2003
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
i
:.li
i 4: ''i
i i
i 1
4
I li
'il 1 1 1
4 II h 1
•il
i' i
11
i
ji ' 1
i
1 1
., 1 ii
— 1 r j
' i I
1 i
1
i
)i,02
16.80
id, 10
V».20
i io i:),98
1 )k.n
i
1 13,18
^5,80
i
!5,04
si.04
i i
J6.32
17,45
^9.16
26.8I 1
31,75
t5,25
12
'
1
'li
1
1 !
i
1
73,23
29,26
88.54
10.07
23.96
34,46
1
31,18
07,81
72,53
l4,81
56,18
1
42,76
i3,66
1
;60.58
i
179,81
;64,09
.74,31
160,46
240,80
287,10
446,00
234,10
131,80
153,17
159,95
250,56
155.09
139,79
253,09
313,88
303.27
199.08
173.82
228.40
282.10
391,51
329,44
,124,11
232.50
196,29
172.37
229.20
247.62
143.08
123,96
261,14
282,40
267.63
175,68
105,72
264.80
290.20
334.10
222.10
125,88
242,80
362.29
316.09
156.83
228.87
160.81
137.49
361.38
293.68
254.57
176.41
. continued 10/29/2003
10/30/2003
10/31^003
11/1/2003
11/2/2003
11/3/2003
11/4^003
11/5/2003
11/6/2003
11/7/2003
11/8/2003
11/9/2003
11/10/2003
11/11/2003
11/12/2003
11/13/2003
11/14/2003
11/15/2003
11/16/2003
11/17/2003
11/18/2003
11/19/2003
1 l/2d/2003
11/21/2003
11/22/2003
11/23/2003
11/24/2003
11/25/2003
11/26/2003
11/27/2003
11/28/2003
11/29/2003
11/30/2003
12/1/2003
12/2/2003
12/3/2003
12/4/2003
12/5/2003
12/6/2003
12/7/2003
12/8/2003
12/9/2003
12/10/2003
12/11/2003
12/12/2003
12/13/2003
12/14/2003
12/1^/2003
12/16/2003
12/17/2003
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
419,30
220,94
1250.24
278,26
i
1130,46 1 1
226.40
^34.60 j
i 350,81 1
\ I i
1187,88
1233,25
,217,03
' 213,93
II i
\: 11
;!04.71
,77,72
116,12 ,
129,04
102,58
94,46
, 222,69
294,42
176.00
274.01
212,11
m.n
220.05
183.56
119.20
106.38
119.01
125.42
226.99
286.86
176,21
224,99
202,74
151.59
194,21
175,60
109.56
121.74
101.22
88.00
207.42
291.66
175,42
276,00
211,87
233.17
199.77
175.60
97.37
117.70
110.48
99.46
177.50
199.99
125.90
127.71
132.23
126.61
Table B.!5
j
1 1 1
1
. continue( 12/18/2003
12/19/2003
12/20/2003
12/21/2003
12/22/2003
12/23/2003
12/24/2003
12/25/2003
12/26/2003
12/27/2003
12/28/2003
12/29/2003
12/30/2003
12/31/2003
1/1/2004
1/2/2004
1/3/2004
1/4/2004
1/5/2004
1/6/2004
1/7/2004
1/8/2004
1/9/2004
1/10/2004
1/11/2004
1/12/2004
1/13/2004
1/14/2004
1/15/2004
1/16/2004
1/17/2004
1/18/2004
1/19/2004
1/20/2004
1/21/2004
1/22/2004
1/23/2004
1/24/2004
1/25/2004
1/26/2004
1/27/2004
1/28/2004
1/29/2004
1/30/2004
1/31/2004
2/1/2004
2/2/2004
2/3/2004
2/4/2004
2/5/2004
1 144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
i
i2(
?
i< .;,
'1
!3
2
2
'? 2
,4
•2
1
13
16
1,
3
! i
1 i
2
i
1
., J9ib7
1
ilob f
5i56
\ •
,! .1 t il
0.26
001
8;90
i5i30
;o,90
1,44
14,88
!5U4
15,40
Ul.70
04,59
1128
20,95
12
224,54
1 ll 362,69
1 322,78 ii
1
1
371,52
ij
302,98
278,60 •;
1 314,33
311,93
111,24
: 146,30
212,96
t 291.65
i ' 188,53
1
r
1 101,89
' :l
i 537,88
.3
215,21
381,56
334,10
405,26
329,44
305.26
345,98
325,88
136.22
154.79
240.12
299.69
157,34
96.94
169,27
225,25
365.26
324.11
372,56
304.10
279,56
315,26
313.45
104,21
147,32
207.46
257.76
176.96
103.94
569.47
214,32
324.49
299.46
361.43
282.00
264.80
302.57
303.95
127.31
334.56
134.00
206.50
184.38
146,86
77,38
118.02
. continue( 2/6/2004
2/7/2004
2/8/2004
2/9/2004
2/10/2004
2/11/2004
2/12/2004
2/13/2004
2/14/2004
2/15/2004
2/16/2004
2/17/2004
2/18/2004
2/19/2004
2/20/2004
2/21/2004
2/22/2004
2/23/2004
2/24/2004
2/25/2004
2/26/2004
2/27/2004
2/28/2004
2/29/2004
3/1/2004
3/2/2004
3/3/2004
3/4/2004
3/5/2004
3/6/2004
3/7/2004
3/8/2004
3/9/2004
3/10/2004
3/11/2004
3/12/2004
3/13/2004
3/14/2004
3/15/2004
3/16/2004
3/17/2004
3/18/2004
3/19/2004
3/20/2004
3/21/2004
3/22/2004
3/23/2004
3/24/2004
3/25/2004
3/26/2004
i 194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
3
3
3
2
3
2
,4
2
X
•1
•
• •
47,10
03,42
55,00
53,52
, 1
07.62
Q4.15
34.01
63.44 [
58.79
1
93,50
80,81
.05:27
92:66
.55,83
12 4
181,80
156,27
215,74
201.11
155.38
291.23
320.04
85,10
78.29
88.40
67.97
88.18
99.69
96.53
177.90
176.46
229.98
156.95
195.11
460.44
233.94
55,17
55,87
50.70
96,54
67.65
86.93
64.02
165.32
141,60
201,86
195,89
140,21
299,91
298.71
67,32
60.30
67.96
46.76
76.51
90.42
80.65
165,99
177.18
181,56
136,31
148.94
105.98
207,51
155.40
150.04
165.82
152.17
167.65
86.93
154,74
Table B.
Averagei
St. Dev.\
Maximum
Minimum
•'
i
1
1
j
1
. PB-AM
Date
7/28/2003
7/29/2003
7/30/2003
7/31/2003
8/1/2003
8/2/2003
8/3/2003
8/4/2003
8/5/2003
8/6/2003
8/7/2003
8/8/2003
8/9/2003
8/10/2003
8/11/2003
8/12/2003
8/13/2003
8/14/2003
8/15/2003
8/16/2003
8/17/2003
8/18/2003
8/19/2003
8/20/2003
8/21/2003
8/22/2003
8/23/2003
8/24/2003
8/25/2003
8/26/2003
8/27/2003
8/28/2003
8/29/2003
8/30/2003
8/31/2003
9/1/2003
9/2/2003
9/3/2003
9/4/2003
9/5/2003
9/6/2003
RNOz'-NDat
Day No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
'c\
^WlR
Fee 1 Tank
fn-
N02
,;-N/L]
:i.26
1.07
}2.20
1.00
),00
),00
),00
0,00
0,19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo 0,25
4.64
12 5
PB
Influent
N02
ing-N/L]
11.91
27.06
199.44
0.02
102.81
0.01
0.01
0.22
PB Effluent/
AMR Influent
N02
[mg-N/L]
7.96
24.73
186.37
0.00
122,79
AMR
Effluent
N02
[mg-N/L]
10.34
27.21
219.32
0.00
107,84
AMR Effluent
N02
[mg-N/Ll
10.67
26.86
189.11
0.00
145.34
105.95
73.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
. continued 9/8/2003
9/9/2003
9/10/2003
9/11/2003
9/12/2003
9/13/2003
9/14/2003
9/15/2003
9/16/2003
9/17/2003
9/18/2003
9/19/2003
9/20/2003
9/21/2003
9/22/2003
9/23/2003
9/24/2003
9/25/2003
9/26/2003
9/27/2003
9/28/2003
9/29/2003
9/30/2003
10/1/2003
10/2/2003
10/3/2003
10/4/2003
10/5/2003
10/6/2003
10/7/2003
10/8/2003
10/9/2003
10/10/2003
10/11/2003
10/12/2003
10/13/2003
10/14/2003
10/15/2003
10/16/2003
10/17/2003
10/18/2003
10/19/2003
10/20/2003
10/21/2003
10/22/2003
10/23/2003
10/24/2003
10/25/2003
10/26/2003
10/27/2003
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
),00
).00
),79
),00
).71
).00
3.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.82
12
!
i 1
6
2,87
0.04
8.32
0.39
0.39
2,15
1,35
4.07
28.75
40.08
0,60
0,00
1.37
0,00
0,00
1.32
0.00
0.00
1.24
0.00
15,10
31.32
0.00
3.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.69
0.41
0.39
2,25
1,42
4,27
30.16
42.04
0.59
0,00
1.73
2.92
0.00
4.96
0 00
0,00
3.08
1.68
4.24
22.85
45.83
0.51
. continuec 10/29/2003
10/30/2003
10/31/2003
11/1/2003
11/2/2003
11/3/2003
11/4/2003
11/5/2003
11/6/2003
11/7/2003
11/8/2003
11/9/2003
11/10/2003
11/11/2003
11/12/2003
11/13/2003
11/14/2003
11/15/2003
11/16/2003
11/17/2003
11/18/2003
11/19/2003
11/20/2003
11/21/2003
11/22/2003
11/23/2003
11/24/2003
11/25/2003
11/26/2003
11/27/2003
11/28/2003
11/29/2003
11/30/2003
12/1/2003
12/2/2003
12/3/2003
12/4/2003
12/5/2003
12/6/2003
12/7/2003
12/8/2003
12/9/2003
12/10/2003
12/11/2003
12/12/2003
12/13/2003
12/14/2003
12/15/2003
12/16/2003
12/17/2003
1 94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
0.00
0.00
0.83
3.50
0.95
0.00
1,71
0.00
0,00
0,00
2,25
3,41
o,do 0,00
8.50
25.97
0,00
0,l8
13.08
2,97
\: 7
0,04
0,16
0,95
1.15
0,81
0,45
0,42
1,12
12,86
2,48
15,41
1,59
1.20
25.80
4.99
1,46
1,45
1,63
9,32
0,88
0,53
0,00
0,24
0.00
0,00
0.00
1.18
1,54
0.86
0,78
0,97
0.43
6,99
10,11
3.06
0.82
0.00
0.00
22.12
13.17
0.00
0.47
0.00
1.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.95
1,21
0,00
0,77
0,48
0,00
0,44
1,17
13.49
2.61
16.06
0.00
1.50
1.26
26.65
3.96
1.53
1.51
1.07
9.63
1.59
1.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.11
1.26
0,66
0.00
5,74
0.41
0,00
0,95
9,07
5.59
5.06
1.21
12.25
0.00
24.51
0.00
22.07
1.06
0.00
0 89
Table B.6 . continue* 12/19/2003
12/20/2003
12/21/2003
12/22/2003
12/23/2003
12/24/2003
12/25/2003
12/26/2003
12/27/2003
12/28/2003
12/29/2003
12/30/2003
12/31/2003
1/1/2004
1/2/2004
1/3/2004
1/4/2004
1/5/2004
1/6/2004
1/7/2004
1/8/2004
1/9/2004
1/10/2004
1/11/2004
1/12/2004
1/13/2004
1/14/2004
1/15/2004
1/16/2004
1/17/2004
1/18/2004
1/19/2004
1/20/2004
1/21/2004
1/22/2004
1/23/2004
1/24/2004
1/25/2004
1/26/2004
1/27/2004
1/28/2004
1/29/2004
1/30/2004
1/31/2004
2/1/2004
2/2/2004
2/3/2004
2/4/2004
2/5/2004
2/6/2004
i 145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
3,47
2,05
0,00
0.00
3.56
5.77
1.85
1,83
3,30
0,00
0.00
1,82
29,91
0,62
0,00
3,11
1,72
0,39
0,00
0,00
12
1, i 18.27
1
5.43
38,31
31.85
1.83
2.52
,0.55
,21.56
17.00
15.24
43.85
2.23
4,52
2,57
0,28
1,20
7,79
21.08
8
8.85
10,76
20.42
38.66
5.26
0,87
0.00
7.15
8.14
6.63
16.24
1.29
0.01
0.00
0.00
18.35
8.07
0.00
4.08
0.00
18.99
5.60
40.18
33.41
1.75
2.36
0.49
22.52
17.67
15,99
48,22
2,27
1,98
2,76
0,00
0,00
1.15
8.52
23.19
0,00
7.43
6.56
40.11
63.15
6.29
1.73
1.37
18.42
0.00
11.80
3.48
29.03
5.30
3.29
1.73
0.00
5,21
3.16
3.31
16,78
0.00
Table B.6 . continue* 2/7/2004
2/8/2004
2/9/2004
2/10/2004
2/11/2004
2/12/2004
2/13/2004
2/14/2004
2/15/2004
2/16/2004
2/17/2004
2/18/2004
2/19/2004
2/20/2004
2/21/2004
2/22/2004
2/23/2004
2/24/2004
2/25/2004
2/26/2004
2/27/2004
2/28/2004
2/29/2004
3/1/2004
3/2/2004
3/3/2004
3/4/2004
3/5/2004
3/6/2004
3/7/2004
3/8/2004
3/9/2004
3/10/2004
3/11/2004
3/12/2004
3/13/2004
3/14/2004
3/15/2004
3/16/2004
3/17/2004
3/18/2004
3/19/2004
3/20/2004
3/21/2004
3/22/2004
3/23/2004
3/24/2004
3/25/2004
3/26/2004
3/27/2004
d 195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
1
1
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,41 1
1.99
I
0.00
0,00 i
0.00
1
3.58
0.87 1
5.15
0,00 ^
0,26
0,00
0.00
1
0.00
0.00 !
0.00 i
'•
1
II
199.44
82.40
0.04
1.05
1,05
7,53
10.60
0.57
1.48
0.47
7.99
0.02
1.69
0.22
4.32
8.24
3.58
9
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
186.37
113,31
2.13
0.00
0.32
3.13
5.18
1.38
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
219.32
90.62
0.00
0.96
1.15
8.28
11.66
0.27
1.54
0.00
8.79
0.00
1.86
0.25
4.75
9.06
3.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
189.11
81.94
17.73
0.00
0.61
15.25
12.81
0.00
0.71
0.00
6.37
2.56
1.95
1.74
4,34
4.57
ible B.7
Average
St. Dev
Maximum
Minimum
PB-AM]
Date
7/28/2003
7/29/2003
7/30/2003
7/31/2003
8/1/2003
8/2/2003
8/3/2003
8/4/2003
8/5/2003
8/6/2003
8/7/2003
8/8/2003
8/9/2003
8/10/2003
8/11/2003
8/12/2003
8/13/2003
8/14/2003
8/15/2003
8/16/2003
8/17/2003
8/18/2003
8/19/2003
8/20/2003
8/21/2003
8/22/2003
8/23/2003
8/24/2003
8/25/2003
8/26/2003
8/27/2003
8/28/2003
8/29/2003
8/30/2003
8/31/2003
9/1/2003
9/2/2003
9/3/2003
9/4/2003
9/5/2003
9/6/2003
[INO3-N]
Day No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Data
AMR
Feed Tank
N03
[mg-N/Ll
5.73
20.57
151.19 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.28
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
PB
Influent
N03
[mg-N/L]
148.56
78.29
428.93 0.01
PB Effluent/
AMR Influent
N03
[mg-N/L]
148.84
72.92
444.70 0.00
3.65
AMR
Effluent
N03
[mg-N/L]
158.02
82.83
449.93 0.00
1,77
AMR Effluent
Tank
N03
[mg-N/L]
164.86
85.04
469.49 0.00
5,39
8.06
13.17
118.85
101.05
56,64
80.58
119.20
127.20
60.05
130.19
76.92
34.15
71 97
56,54
130
Table B.7 . continue 9/8/2003
9/9/2003
9/10/2003
9/11/2003
9/12/2003
9/13/2003
9/14/2003
9/15/2003
9/16/2003
9/17/2003
9/18/2003
9/19/2003
9/20/2003
9/21/2003
9/22/2003
9/23/2003
9/24/2003
9/25/2003
9/26/2003
9/27/2003
9/28/2003
9/29/2003
,9/30/2003
10/1/2003
10/2/2003
10/3/2003
10/4/2003
10/5/2003
10/6/2003
10/7/2003
10/8/2003
10/9/2003
10/10/2003
110/11/2003
10/12/2003
ilO/13/2003
10/14/2003
10/15/2003
10/16/2003
10/17/2003
10/18/2003
10/19/2003
10/20/2003
10/21/2003
10/22/2003
10/23/2003
10/24/2003
10/25/2003
10/26/2003
10/27/2003
d 43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
0,00
1.19
i,53
f[),26 2.39
d,65
1,39
;
1 i 1
3.00
3.00
3.23
1 0.00
0.00
i
3,88
108,38
91,57
145,65
177,32
228,79
233,09
226.57
184,97
211.77
216,73
143.85
162.13
208.38
127.88
108,98
171,43
136,35
204,77
224.32
221,46
169.65
197.01
185.27
121.43
146.28
203.42
113.63
96.00
152,71
185,99
239,88
244.46
237.60
194.03
222,14
227,33
150.89
170.07
218.54
127.97
110.46
144.19
176.42
211.02
252.03
99.95
208.95
235 55
219.96
184.51
158.03
23455
131
Table B.7. continued 10/29/2003
10/30/2003
10/31/2003
11/1/2003
11/2/2003
11/3/2003
11/4/2003
11/5/2003
11/6/2003
11/7/2003
11/8/2003
11/9/2003
11/10/2003
11/11/2003
11/12/2003
11/13/2003
11/14/2003
11/15/2003
11/16/2003
11/17/2003
11/18/2003
11/19/2003
11/20/2003
11/21/2003
11/22/2003
11/23/2003
11/24/2003
11/25/2003
11/26/2003
11/27/2003
11/28/2003
11/29/2003
11/30/2003
12/1/2003
12/2/2003
12/3/2003
12/4/2003
12/5/2003
12/6/2003
12/7/2003
12/8/2003
12/9/2003
12/10/2003
12/11/2003
12/12/2003
12/13/2003
12/14/2003
12/15/2003
12/16/2003
12/17/2003
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131 132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
1,94
0,00
0,00
20,95
0,00
0.00
0.00
4,82
0.25
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
4.31
0,00
7.22
0,00
0,00
0.28
0,00
1,61
1.41
0,18
7,16
2.97
216,19
188.22
78,70
147,87
122.93
90.39
167,84
111,17
88,02
129,17
111,60
107,19
132,86
178,85
203,07
428,93
294,81
1
154.69
306.46
221,63
209.34
207.15
260.42
221,40
218.15
218,29
215,86
168,10
80,37
145.48
111,53
84,27
150,29
110,23
100,80
113.13
198.71
147.23
118.33
167.40
228,50
444,70
287.17
119.80
285.98
203.34
196,03
236.25
253.98
223.40
219.44
205,44
226.68
197.44
82,55
154,08
128,94
94,82
176,05
116.37
92.32
135.49
117.07
112,43
139,37
187,60
212,80
449,93
308.89
162.27
321.46
232.47
219.59
217.21
273.10
232.23
228.48
228.83
199,18
210.26
82.31
169,58
100,64
53.65
106,08
178.33
81.72
134.66
112.25
132.29
171.69
198.74
252.15
314.06
165.27
469.49
243.36
212.26
271.19
357.06
262.17
230.93
246.30
132
. continue( 12/18/2003
12/19/2003
12/20/2003
12/21/2003
12/22/2003
12/23/2003
12/24/2003
12/25/2003
12/26/2003
12/27/2003
12/28/2003
12/29/2003
12/30/2003
12/31/2003
1/1/2004
1/2/2004
1/3/2004
1/4/2004
1/5/2004
1/6/2004
1/7/2004
1/8/2004
1/9/2004
1/10/2004
1/11/2004
1/12/2004
1/13/2004
1/14/2004
1/15/2004
1/16/2004
1/17/2004
1/18/2004
1/19/2004
1/20/2004
1/21/2004
1/22/2004
1/23/2004
1/24/2004
1/25/2004
1/26/2004
1/27/2004
1/28/2004
1/29/2004
1/30/2004
1/31/2004
2/1/2004
2/2/2004
2/3/2004
2/4/2004
2/5/2004
i 144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153 154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,50
0.00
151,19
2,22
0,74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
83.30
7.97
0.18
99.34
7.28
0.46
0.22
6.41
!34,18
142.31
45,84
110,28
118.61
172.83
105.17
117,75
91.41
116.88
134.14
95.30
173,50
175.38
103.61
0.02
163.86
117.49
140.69
105.24
193.60
234.32
253.04
127.60
89.31
130.72
150.27
123.69
90.36
84.72
105.56
152.06
76,04
154.57
165.45
141.60
144.25
152.43
131.70
85.73
154.78
245.64
254.17
152.98
115.67
124.39
181.29
102.91
123.41
95.84
122.60
140.70
104,80
190.80
184.55
113.14
170.30
128.47
154.67
115.71
212.26
323.43
261.21
170.82
100.00
126.28
176.56
151.96
112.80
99.80
1.88
173.04
137.20
188.26
170,27
186,11
169,60
166 53
194.36
131.01
214.00
133
Table B.7. continued 2/6/2004
2/7/2004
2/8/2004
2/9/2004
2/10/2004
2/11/2004
2/12/2004
2/13/2004
2/14/2004
2/15/2004
2/16/2004
2/17/2004
2/18/2004
2/19/2004
2/20/2004
2/21/2004
2/22/2004
2/23/2004
2/24/2004
2/25/2004
2/26/2004
2/27/2004
2/28/2004
2/29/2004
3/1/2004
3/2/2004
3/3/2004
3/4/2004
3/5/2004
3/6/2004
3/7/2004
3/8/2004
3/9/2004
3/10/2004
3/11/2004
3/12/2004
3/13/2004
3/14/2004
3/15/2004
3/16/2004
3/17/2004
3/18/2004
3/19/2004
3/20/2004
3/21/2004
3/22/2004
3/23/2004
3/24/2004
3/25/2004
3/26/2004
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
1 8,69
9,25
12.00
9,15
9,93
J
1
1
(29,851 i i
18,8211 i '
io,ooh '\ I
0,3 Ij
0.00
1 1
0,16i
i0,28i '
0.97
0.04
0.44
0,00
0.461
i
5,97
0,17 i
1 1.80 0.00
0.36 '
1
0.20
0.66
1
256,74
215.90
247.91
234.20
250.06
173.44
187,76
i 278.25
110.29
0.01
54.22
41,73
35.46
63,56
68.87
68.00 '
32.54
49.63
32.63
58.19
17,63
245.84
120.03
119.43
117,46
186,24
153,44
205,20
227,10
179,80
165.20
290.40
87.37
0.00
0.00
55.24
43,27
60,80
66.98
131.81
281.46
236,50
271.42
256.63
274.00
187,75
205,60
305.99
121,26
0.00
0.00
59.60
45,79
38,99
69.85
75.73
74.74
35.19
54,56
35.71
63,99
19.35
270,32
131,93
131.33
290 40
254 20
279.60
253.00
175.40
188.60
248.50
243.15
96.39
63.57
0.00
142.71
61.45
40,04
74.49
78.58
77.58
40.08
82.13
37.21
84 14
29.60
191.89
136 52
58.54
134
.^pi'ENpiX C
FEED TANK; A]S[ALYSIS DATA
135
Tabled. ^ Sample
No. 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109
Total Change
Sample
No. 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109
Total Change
ia. HRT
[hoursi] 0.0 10.5 17.51 22.51 24.5 41.5 45.01 57.5 70.5! 139.5
TA [mg-N/L] 50.4 151.7 231.9 207.0 200.7 266.7 310.^ 427.^ 441.0 402.4
352.0
ture Feed Tank #1 Dati pH
6.7 7.1 1.1 7.9 8.0 8.6 8.7 8.9 8.8 8.8
2.1
COD [mg-
COD/Ll 674.0 740.0
980.0
930.0
782.0 460.0
214.0
Temp
fq 23.8 23.7 23.2 24.1 24.3 23.3 23.4 23.5 22.9 23.9
0.1
NOx [mg-N/L] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
T [r
TD
1
DS ng-S/L]
3019.0 28^9.0 2720.0 2680.0 3061.0
i 3563.0 32ii6.0 33^.0
1 366.0 GAS
TRAP
ImgJN/LI
i' h 1.6 1.4 1.4
1-1 6.8
0.4
i
11
i
1 1 j
DO [mg-
1 DO/L] 5.4 3.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.9
3.5 UREA (JSC)
[mg-N/L] 138.9 110.1 83.0 75.9 77.9 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
-138.9
i
i
1
OrgN [mg-N/L] 386.7 280.7 194.8 216.9 229.7 140.9 100.4 0.9
-53.3 10.1
376.6 %
NH3
[%] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3
TOC
[mg-TOC/L] 314.0 364.7 314.4 318.1 331.8 276.9 267.6 235.5 223.7 205.9
108.1 NH3
(dissolved)
[mg-N/Ll 0.1 1.0 6.4 9.3 10.2 50.7 64.8 127.9 119.5 105,4
TN
[mg-N/L 437.1 432.4 426.7 423.9 430.4 407.6 411.3 428.7 387.7 412.5
24,6 NH4
(dissolved
[mg-N/Ll 50,2 150,7 225,5 197,7 190,5 216,1 246.1 299,9 321.5 297.0
136
Table Sample
No. 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 Total
Change
Sample
No. 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 Total
Change
C.2. ^ ia HRT
[hours] 0.0 10.5 17.51 22.5, 24.5 41.5 45.0 57.5: 70.5' 139.5
TA [mg-N/L]!
23.4, 28.21 31.6 36.1 35.6i 54.3 56.7 95.2
499.4 385.2
-361.7
ture Feed Tank #2 Data pH
6.4 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.4 7.4 8.0 8.5 9.0
2.5
COD [mg-
COD/L] 556.0 840.0
892.0
1012.0 900.0 808.0 620.0
-64.0
Temp
[Cl 22.9 23.8 22,.A 24.0 24.1 23.1 23.5 23.7 23.3 23.8
0.9
NOx [mg-N/L] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
TDS [mg-
TDS/L]
1114.0 1163.0 1169.0
1 1324.0 1 1352.0
1483.0 1621.0 2713.0
1599.0 GAS
TRAP
[mg^N/LJ
0.7 0.7 0.8
1.0
1.1 0.8
0.4
DO [mg-
DO/L] 5.4
1 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.2
4.2 UREA (JSC)
[mg-N/L] 220.2 218.7 202.7 207.6 203.1 150.2 117.0 134.1
-220.2
•
OrgN [mg-N/L] 375.6 383.3 375.3 397.5 352.6 379.3 370.5 383.7 376.6 403.1
-27.5 %
NH3
[%] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3
TOC
[mg-TOC/L] 339.2 390.2 359.7 378.3 367.4 363.2 353.6 342.6 318.1 167.8
171.4 NH3
(dissolved)
[mg-N/L[ 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.9 5,4
74,0 128,6
TN
[mg-N/L 375.6 383.3 375.3 397.5 352.6 379.3 370.5 383.7 376.6 403.1
-27.5 NH4
(dissolved
[mg-N/L] 23,4 28,1 31.6 36.0 35.4 53,7 55.9 89.8
425,5 256.6
137
Table C.3. Ma Sample
No. 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 Total
Change
Sample
No. 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 Total
Change
HRT
[hours] 0.0 10.5 17.5 22.5 24.5 41.5 45.0 57.5 70.5 139.5
TA [mg-N/L] 15.3 39.2 89.1 147.7 204.1 251.8 262.8 296.5 303.5 386.9
-371.6
ure Feed Tank #3 Dat pH
6.5 7.3 8.4 8.7 8.7 8.9 8.8 9.0 8.9 8.8
2.3
COD [mg-
COD/L] 496.0 1140.0
952.0
820.0 770.0 800.0 766.0 700.0
-204.0
Temp
[C] 22.5 23.8 23.4 24.1 24.3 23.2 23.6 23.8 23.3 24.0
1.5
NOx [mg-N/L] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
I
TDS [mg-
tDS/L[
1 (
•••
15^1.0 M29.0 l8l5.0 2209.0 2183.0 i236l.O ^50.0 2862.0
\1271.0 iGlAS TRAP
[mg-N/L]
1.1 1.0 1.1
1.2
1.2 0.8
0.1
DO [mg-
DO/L] 5.3 2.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.8 0.7
4.7 UREA (JSQ
[mg-N/L| 202.7 184.2 133.9 96.4
2.5 20.8 19.1
-202.7
OrgN [mg-N/L] 391.1 411.4 385.6 390.1 379.6 393.3 383.7 378.1 368.1 399.6
-8.5 %
NHS
[%1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3
TOC
[mg-TOC/L] 318.1 389.5 347.3 327.2 321.0 277.0 276.0 255.4 246.4 168.8
149.3 NH3
(dissolved)
[mg-N/L] 0.0 0.5 10.8 31.3 41.7 72.9 73.6 113.1 92.2 103.1
TN
[mg-N/L] 391.1 411.4 385.6 390.1 379.6 393.3 383,7 378,1 368,1 399.6
-8.5 NH4
(dissolved
[mg-N/L] 15.3 38.7 78.3 116.4 162.3 178.9 189.2 183.4 211,3 283.8
138
Table C.4. Clean Feed Tank #1 Dal Sample
No. 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 Total
Change
Sample
No. 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 Total
Change
HRT
[hours[ 0.0 10.5 17.5 22.5 24.5 41.5 45.0 57.5 70.5 139.5
TA [mg-N/L] 25.1 25.0 26.4 28.5 25.6 49.7 41.9 60.6 57.6 173.0
-147.9
pH
6.0 6.2 6.0 5.9 6.0 6.7 6.2 6.9 6.5 7.6
1.6
COD [mg-
COD/L] 584.0 1060.0
1074.0
896.0 800.0 846.0 640.0
-56.0
Temp
[C[ 21.5 23.7 23.3 24.0 24.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 22.3 23.9
2.4
NOx [mg-N/L] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
^
1
•
ll ii '
j
1 1 '''
1
i
TDS [n^g-
TDS/L]
1379.0 1402.0 1387.0 1922.0 1514.0 1686.0 1613.0 2156.0
777.0 GAS
TRAP
mg-N/L]
1.2 0.9 0.6
0.9
1.0 0.8
-03
DO [mg-
DO/L] 5.4 4.6
1 3.6 2.1
i 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1
43 UREA (JSC)
[mg-N/L[ 232.8 235.5 231.1 232.3
230.1 159.1 280.3 112.2
-232.8
OrgN [mg-N/Ll 393.5 397.4 387.1 398.7 399.4 405.2 391.0 415.4 385.9 417.6
-24.1 %
NH3
[%] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOC
[mg-TOC/L[ 347.7 409.7 400.1 408.9 408.5 389.2 395.3 401.2 386.5 277.0
70.7 NH3
(dissolved)
[mg-N/L[ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 4.0
TN
[mg-N/Ll 393.5 397.4 387.1 398.7 399.4 405,2 391,0 415.4 385.9 417.6
-241 NH4
(dissolved
[mg-N/Ll 25,0 24.9 26.3 28.5 25.6 49.6 41.8 60.3 57.5 169.0
139
Table C.5. Cle Sample
No. 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509
Total Change
Sample
No. 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509
Total Change
HRT
[hours] 0.0 10.5 17.5 22.5 24.5 41.5 45.0 57.5 70.5 139.5
TA [mg-N/L] 24.3 26.9 25.0 24.4 25.0 36.7 34.9 45.1 24.1 149.1
-124.8
an Feed Tank #2 Dati pH
6.3 6.5 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.7 6.7 7.0 7.1 8.2
2.0
COD [mg-
COD/L] 566.0 880.0
984.0
760.0 766.0 720.0 684.0 580.0
-14.0
Temp
[Cl 21.3 22.6 23.3 24.0 24.1 23.4 23.3 23.4 22.8 24.0
2.7
NOx [mg-N/L] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
1
1 TDS i [mg-TDS/L]
1 1
1 1454.0 1083.0 1067.0
1 1170.0 ' I 1166.0 : 1232.0 ^1237.0 i 1727.0
273.0 GAS
TRAP
[mg-N/L]
1.0
i 1.2 1.3
1 1.3
i 1.1 ' 0.8
0.1
\
'
DO 1 [mg-1 DO/L]
5.5 4.0 2.9 1.5
I 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.6
4.9 UREA (JSC)
[mg-N/L[ 233.4 232.9 321.3 229.3 226.1 184.7 158.8 213.9 190.1 108.4
-125.0
OrgN [mg-N/L] 396.6 388.1 392.5 382.6 393.9 373.9 398.5 392.4 384.0 388.2
8.4 %
NH3
f%] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,1
TOC
[mg-TOC/L] 327.0 390.0 380.2 390.8 384.1 354.2 364.4 363.9 337.5 204.6
122.4 NH3
(dissolved)
[mg-N/L] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0,1 0,2 0,2 13,3
TN
[mg-N/L 396.6 388,1 392,5 382.6 393.9 373.9 398.5 392.4 384.0 388.2
8.4 NH4
(dissolvec
[mg-N/L 24,3 26,8 24,9 24,4 24,9 36.6 34.8 44,8 23,9 135.8
140
Table Sample
No. 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 Total
Change
Sample
No. 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 Total
Change
C.6. Cle HRT
[hours[ 0.0 10.5 17.5 22.5 24.5 41.5 45.0 57.5 70.5 139.5
TA [mg-N/L[ 25.0 147.2 36.1 30.1 27.1 37.7 40.4 60.8 66.8 174.5
-149.5
an Feed Tank #3 Data pH
6.3 6.4 7.3 6.4 6.3 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.4 8.6
2.3
COD [mg-
COD/L[ 624.0 1000.0
1008.0
1140.0 886.0 800.0 772.0 660.0
-36.0
Temp
1 [Cl _
21.1 23.7 23.4 22.7 24.0 23.4 23.3 23.5 23.0 24.1
3.0
NOx [mg-N/L] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 ^ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
1 WDS
l:i^s?Li n, ri ;
Ilil05.0 ,1182.0 : 1369.0 1213.0 1210.0 ii328.0 J300.0 1847.0
742.0 GAS
TRAP
[jng-N/L]
1.0 0.9 1,0
1
I 1.0 ^ 1 1
1.0 0:9
0.1
1
• 1
1
1
DO [mg-
DO/L] 5.3 4.3 3.0 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8
45 UREA (JSQ
[mg-N/L[ 228.2 231.2 229.1 229.5 221.4 157.9 163.0 211.7 205.8 83.6
-144.6
OrgN [mg-N/L[ 375.6 383.7 381.4 375.6 311.1 401.9 403.7 406.1 382.0 401.9
-263 %
NH3
f%] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
TOC
[mg-TOC/LI 334.5 408,1 389,3 394.5 391.8 378.8 372.8 369.0 352.4 228.9
105.6 NH3
(dissolved)
[mg-N/L] 0,0 0.2 0,4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.0
33.1
TN
[mg-N/L 375.6 383,7 381,4 375,6 377.7 401,9 403,7 406,1 382.0 401,9
-263 NH4
(dissolvec
[mg-N/L 25.0 146.9 35,7 30.0 27,0 37.6 40,3 60,3 65,8 141.4
141
^ENDIK
^ M DMA
D
142
Table D.]
, !'! 1 • 1
' ' • '•••' ' I I
I. A M R ReactorliiEi^3<;riptioi!i Length of Ftea^fU Length of l^eaititblr
1
1 1
Diameter of Redctpt Diameter of Reacf or
Total Reactor Volilimp :, , ' !
(Tube/Reactor) l^engtli Ratio
Length of Single Hollo^ Length of Single HoUbW
Fiber fiber
Number of Hoilow Fibers Total Length of Hollov\^ |= Total Length of Hollow F
•'. • • \ ' \ \
Membrane Thickn^s Hollow Fiber DiameteH
Single Hollow Fiber ^ Total Hollow Fiber Ar
Single Hollow Fibei* Vp Total Hollow Fiber Vo(
Table D.2. AMR|Iftiii( (T/R) Lengtii H
,0.0i vli 1.6 ill 2.0 i 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.6 i; 3.7 : 3.8 3,^ 4,0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4,5 4,6 4,7 4,8 4.9 5.0
' bers 'bers
!S
(OD) rea ea ume Lime
;isity Dk jitio
21.5 54.7 3.9 10
4293.95
2.3
49.53149606 125.81
150 7429,724409 619.1437008
0.09 0.17
0.0226865 3.402975
2,854188565 428.1282848
sign
1
Porosity 1,000 0,957 0.913
inches cm
inches cm
cm*3
inches cm
inches feet
cm cm
cm*2 cm'^2 cm*3 cm*3
0.892 0.870 0.848 0.844 0,840 0,835 0,831 0.827 0.822 0.818 0.813 0.809 0,805 0,800 0,796 0,792 0,787 0,783
143
Table D.3. AMR Volumes
AMR Total Volume
[mL]
AMR Length
[cm] 4293.95
Table D.4. AMR Reynold's Numbers Recycle R&tio 20
(RR20)
AMR Diameter
[m]
AMR Flow
[mL/min]
AhflR Vel c iy
Density l a t p c
Viscosity at20C
[N*s/m^2]
AMR Rey. No.
[-1 0.1 21 3.50ETI 0.001002 0,034867265
Table D.5. AMR Reynold's Numbep Recycle Ratio 10
AMR Diameter
[ml
AMR Flow
[mL/min] 0.1 11 1.83 B07'
Table D.6. PB Reynold's Numbers Recycle Ratio 20 '
PB Diameter
[m]
PB Flow
[mL/min] 8.5 21
Table D.7. PB Reynold's Numbers Recycle Ratio 10
6m [mm
Density at^OC
tkg/m*3] 998.2
Viscosity at20C
[N*s/m*2]
0.001002
AMR Rey. No.
[-] 0.018263806
00000035 998.2
Density at20C
[kg/m^3]
Viscosity at20C
[N*s/m^2]
PB Rey. No.
t] 0.001002 2,963717565
m.\o) PB
Diameter [m]
PB Flow
[mL/min]
Density at 20 C
[kg/m*3]
Viscosity at20C
[N*s/m^2]
PB Rey. No.
__t] 1.82
8.5 11
Table D.8. PB-AMR
System
TR TR
AMR AMR
Recycle Ratio
20
10 20
10
17
998.2
TU-WRS HRT
571
0.001002 1.552423486
HRT
[hours] 2.880952 2.880952
64.41667 64.41667
[mL/min] 0.7 0.7
[mL] 121 121
3865 3865
145
Table D.9. AMR ESM
Membrane mass
[mg] 693.0
membrane length
[in] 8.0
Vessel length Vessel thickness [cm] 54.7
membrane lengtii
[cm] 20.3
[cm] 0.6
Pressure Tap mass
[msl 172.0
Total ring mass
JsL 298.2
No. of taps
J± 150.0
Total plate mass
[g1 5108.4
Total membrane m^s!
Membriane m£ss/le
639,5
Table D. TR mass
[mg] 4321.0
0. TRESM TR length
[in] 8.0
TR empty mass
[gl 648.2
TR length
[cm] 20.3
TR water mass
[gJ 56.0
njisg/lt!
Icffi 51 !0.
mg/c 34.1
Totsil tap mass
tiigA:m
W
volume Vessel mass
25.8
ngth
1?,6
air mass
Total membrane length
JcmJ 18750.0
[mg] 2039079.3
Tc( al tap lass
Total membrane mass
JgL 639.5
Rubber mat mass
isL 319.1
AMR water mass
isL 3866.0
otal TR length
cm 3048.0
TR empty mass [g]
648.2 TR m-f controllers
(2) [Rl
1813.0
TR traps (5)
[gl 310.0
146
PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in partial fiilfilhnent of the requirements for a master's
degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Healdi Sciences Center, I
agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for
research purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may be
granted by the Director of the Library or my major professor. It is understood that any
copying or publication of this thesis for financial gam shall not be allowed without my
further written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement.
Agree (Permission is granted.)
Student Signamre Date