technical advisory group

Technical Advisory Group Meeting “Sustainable Management of Pollutants Underneath Landfills”

“Onsite Treatment of Leachate Using Energized Processes” By D.E. Meeroff (Florida Atlantic University)

Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM)

DATE: Friday, November 2, 2012

TIME: 1:00 pm

WHERE: Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton Campus

Computer Center Building

CM Building (22), Room 130 (Studio 1)

777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Attendance:

Dan Meeroff (FAU), Tim Vinson (Hinkley Center), Demaris Lugo (Broward County),

Sam Levin, Paul Wierzbicki (DEP Southeast District), Dan Schauer (Geosyntec

Consultants), David Bromstad (Orange County), Vanessa Cruz (Orange County),

Ricardo Moore (Orange County), Arnaldo Mercado (Orange County), Cleevens

Geurrier (FAU), Fred Bloetscher (FAU), Ahmed Albasri (FAU), Frank Youngman

(FAU)

1. Opening address by Dr. Meeroff followed by introduction of the group members

and participants both through GoToMeeting and live (1:08 pm)

2. Introduction to Landfill Technology Research by Dr. Meeroff

Dr. Meeroff presented the agenda of the meeting, the objectives of the research, and

provided an overview of current and past research projects funded by the Hinkley

Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management. He also presented the newly

published journal article “Application of photochemical technologies for treatment of

landfill leachate” by Daniel E. Meeroff, Frederick Bloetscher, D.V. Reddy, Francois

Gasnier, Swapnil Jain, André McBarnette, and Hatsuko Hamaguchi published in the

Journal of Hazardous Materials. Dr. Meeroff showed the TAG members the project

website (http://labees.civil.fau.edu/leachate.html), and presented a preview of the

newest joint project on leachate clogging at the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach

County with University of Florida and the Hinkley Center.

3. Laboratory Studies of Groundwater Circulation Well Technology by Ahmed

Albasri

Ahmed began discussing the background on the research. He explained how the

treatment process is intended to work. Then he went over the methodology of the

aquarium experiments. He reported 3‐log removal of iron in the early stages of the

process, but iron speciation still remains an issue. The need to run the experiments

for longer than one week was brought up. Dan Schauer of Geosyntec Consultants

asked if the “shadow effect” was evaluated. Tim Vinson asked about the zone of

influence, radius of wells and effects of varying pump flowrates. Dan Schauer

offered to provide some reference material for help in developing a design equation

to estimate the zone of influence of the groundwater circulation model. He offered

to provide data on how long GCW or similar technologies are operated in the field.

An idea to load the aquaria until a steady state concentration is found in the well,

and then turn on the GCW was put forward. David Bromfield asked if the system

needs to be constantly “on.” The answer to that question should be answered after

the experiments are concluded. However, it could be possible that the system may

need only to be online seasonally as a preventative measure. Fred Bloetscher asked

about the contribution of iron bacteria or if encouraging the growth in the

subsurface can help. He asked if the biological profile of the samples had been

analyzed, and mentioned that Micrim Labs can do this test. He also offered to share

MODFLOW or Groundwater Vistas to create a localized model of the well. Tim

Vinson mentioned that Gang Chen from FSU has done some work on iron bacteria.

He also asked if we had any measurements to determine the extent of circulation,

and Ahmed mentioned that he had a video of a dye test. Ahmed had questions for

the TAG:

Is there any information on GCW or sparging well design equations? Dan

Schauer offered that he has information on soil types, porosity, etc. requirements

that he would share.

Any information on iron speciation? Tim Vinson mentioned that Tim Townsend

from UF can provide a resource, and Dan Schauer offered to send the team a

contact from his geochemistry division.

Where else is iron an issue? Tim Vinson mentioned Polk County and North

Florida. Paul Wierzbicki mentioned that all of the landfills in the Southeast

District are also having this issue. Demaris Lugo mentioned that Tim Townsend

has some data. Dan Schauer offered to provide a short list.

Information on costs? Dan Schauer offered to provide some rough cost estimates.

Dr. Meeroff mentioned that preliminary costs are premature at this time until we

can define the zone of influence and the process efficiency.

4. Pilot Studies of Photocatalytic Oxidation of Leachate by Frank Youngman

Frank began discussing the background on the research. He explained how the

treatment process works. Then he went over the methodology of the pilot scale

experiments. He reported on the progress of catalyst optimization, process

removal efficiency and kinetics of COD, ammonia, and color, and he described

upcoming catalyst recovery experiments. Fred Bloetscher asked about the impact

of pH on the ammonia removal. Demaris Lugo asked about chlorides and arsenic.

It was concluded that the process would not be effective for chloride removal.

Tim Vinson asked how the number of variables can be teased out of the kinetics

testing, in particular the variability in the leachate sampled. It would be better if

the same leachate could be used for all of the optimization tests. He also inquired

about control experiments, such as the effect of aeration and dark controls. Frank

mentioned that those experiments were conducted by a previous student,

Richard Reichenbach. Paul Wierzbicki asked if Frank relied on any leachate

quality data and then mentioned that the legislature has removed the lab testing

requirements for landfills unless they are under assessment monitoring to meet

the requirements of hazardous waste (this was enacted in the last legislative

session). Demaris Lugo mentioned that she provided a CD with leachate data for

the Hinkley Center and Dan Meeroff has a copy for Frank to review. She also

asked about how the process will be tested in the field, and Dr. Meeroff provided

some thoughts about a batch tank, which is already existing at the Monarch Hill

site.

5. Adjourn (3pm), thank you for participating!

For more information, contact Dr. Daniel E. Meeroff at:

777 Glades Road, Building 36, Room 222, Boca Raton, FL 33431‐0991

Tel.(561) 297‐3099 FAX.(561) 297‐0493 http://labees.civil.fau.edu

1

Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, November 2, 2012

Technical Advisory Group Meeting

1. “Sustainable Management of Pollutants Underneath Landfills”

2. “Onsite Treatment of Leachate Using Energized Processes”

Daniel E. Meeroff, Ph.D.Department of Civil, Environmental & Geomatics Engineering

Laboratories for Engineered Environmental Solutions


Agenda

1. Introductions/Opening Remarks

2. Overview of Projects

3. Circulation Well Experiments

4. Photocatalytic Oxidation Studies

Dr. Meeroff

Dr. Meeroff

Ahmed

Frank

5. User Input/Open Forum Everyone


Introductions


Overview of Projects• “Sustainable Management of

Pollutants Underneath Landfills”

• “On-Site Treatment of Leachate Using Energized Processes”


http://labees.civil.fau.edu/leachate


Previous Work• “Options for Managing Municipal Landfill Leachate”

• Englehardt and Meeroff (2005)• “Investigation of Energized Options for Leachate

Management Year One”• Meeroff and Tsai (2006)

• “Investigation of Energized Options for Leachate Management Year Two”• Meeroff and Tsai (2008)

• “Interactive Decision Support Tool for Leachate Management”• Meeroff and Teegavarapu (2010)

• “Energized Processes for Onsite Treatment of Leachate”• Meeroff (2011)

• “Management of Subsurface Reductive Dissolution Underneath Landfills”• Meeroff and Albasri (2012)

2


Journal Article

• We are very proud to announce the publication of a journal article from this research

• Journal of Hazardous Materials

• Published February 2012


Exciting New Joint Project

• “Critical Examination of Leachate Collection System Clogging at SWA Disposal Facilities”



1. “Reducing The Iron Pollution In Landfill Soils By Using Aeration Wells”

Ahmed Albasri, MSCE CandidateDepartment of Civil, Environmental & Geomatics Engineering



The Problem• Iron is being detected in monitoring wells

downstream of Florida landfills• State Enforceable Secondary Drinking Water Standard

(62-550 FAC) and Groundwater Cleanup Target Level (62-777 FAC) set at 300 µg/L (0.3 mg/L)

• Evaluation monitoring required by 62-701.510(7)(a) if levels are detected significantly above background

• Requires installation of compliance monitoring wells• Requires additional sampling• Stipulates corrective measures (62-780 FAC)

• Pump & treat with filtration, biological treatment, chemical treatment

26

Fe55.845


Sources• Landfill

leachate• Iron liberated

due to the presence of the landfill


Iron from Leachate?

3


Iron Mobilization in Leachate Plumes• Landfill leachate plume chemistry:

• High oxygen demand• High levels of strongly reduced organic matter • pH 6.5-8 (typical Florida landfill leachate)

• Groundwater chemistry:• Soils high in subsurface iron oxides• Low DO, reducing conditions

• Food source + environmental condtions favor iron-and sulfate-reducing bacteria (Shewanella and Desulfovibrio)• Microbially-mediated liberation of ferrous iron


Landfill Leachate• If the source of the elevated iron is landfill leachate,

then we would expect to see:• Other conservative tracers (TDS, chlorides, etc.)• Other leachate contaminants (VOCs, As, etc.)• Dilution effects compared to the measured leachate

water quality

• Caveats:• Variability caused by field sampling methods• Reliability of redox-sensitive parameters • Well construction materials (non-steel)• Variations in landfill construction methods


North Florida Results

Monitoring Well 7S

Monitoring Well 2S

• Townsend 2008

• Timmons et al. 2008

• Wang and Stone 2008


Case Study

• Iron presence was detected in 22 observation wells on 29 April 2008 in North Central Landfill (NCLF) higher than PDWS (Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard) which is 300 µg /L

• High Iron presence exceed the CTL (Clean-up Target Level) which is 3000 µg /L were observed in 15 monitoring wells including compliance wells


NE

SESW


Possible Corrective Measures• Options:

• Either Pump and treat with packed column, sedimentation, membrane filtration system (Sim et al. 2001)

• Excess iron bacteria disinfection

• Lack of iron bacteria microaeration, pH-adjustment, chelation with organic acids, nutrient addition

• Ferrous iron ion exchange or oxidation + filtration or adsorptive filtration or oxidation trenches

• Ferrous + Arsenic advanced oxidation recirculation wells

• Hydrology restore non-reducing conditions

4


Treatment Method• Soil aeration is one of the successful decontamination processes

used to treat volatiles • Groundwater circulation well (GCW) systems attempt to create a 3-

dimensional circulation pattern in an aquifer by drawing ground water into the well

• The main goal of this system is to oxidize the Iron in the soil from Fe(ll) form to Fe(lll) form, which is insoluble to stop Iron migration with ground water

• The advantage is that treatment of the contaminated groundwater takes place below grade and does not require that it be pumped out the ground

• Another advantage over conventional pump-and-treat is that GCWs induce a groundwater circulation zones that “sweeps” the aquifer• Pump-and-treat systems cause drawdown around the well, leaving

contaminated zones that are not treated


Air

SandFilter

Another Option

• In situ remediation process

• Metals and radionuclides

• Volatiles

• Biodegradables

• Simple to operate

• Rapid

• InexpensiveReactionZone


Groundwater circulation well (GCW)


Objectives

1. To develop a list of viable engineering alternatives for controlling the release of iron in-situ

2. To conduct lab experiments for iron (and possible co-contaminant) removal in-situ using groundwater recirculation well technology


Samples Collection• Boca soil samples were collected

• 4 samples were collected from Polk County Landfill

• The first 2 samples where collected from SE & NE of the site on 05/11/2011

• The second set of 2 were collected from SE & SW on 11/10/2011

• The samples collected after removing the top 15 cm from the soil surface

• The soil has a homogeneous profile

• The samples were kept at room temperature until testing


Aquarium Experiments• GCW model consists of the following parts:

• Transparent glass aquarium of (11.5 × 5.5 × 7.75) inch dimensions

• A prototype of sparging well (vinyl tube ½” outside DIA)

• Two well screens with 4 slits/cm and 1 inch long separated by 1 inch

• Vinyl tube within a tube to create the negative pressure head of the air bubbles which induces circulation

• Gravel filter around the well with #20 Sieve for a diameter of 1.5 inch around the well

• Aquarium Air pump (elite 799) with 1 cubic ft / min flowrate and with pressure of 1.0 PSI

5



Test with Boca Soils• For conservative demands the test has started with soil from Boca

Raton to prove the ability of contaminant removal

• Boca soil is sandy as it lies in the Eastern Sandy flatland area according to physiographic region.

• The geographical distribution of the soil in Florida reflects that Boca soil is sposdsol type which has an expected iron content of 300 mg/kg

• Iron reference of 100 mg/L was added to the water and soil in the aquarium

• Two aquarium tests were running simultaneously to obtain replicate results



Results of Boca Soil Tests• Iron concentration found in Boca Raton was close to

the theoretical data (~300 mg/kg) for all samples• Iron removal readings through the 72 - 264 hr

running time show arbitrary numbers as it cannot be decided whether the Iron is in Fe(II) or Fe(III) form as they both can be occur in spectrometric test

• Independent lab results were also inconclusive due to the limitations of the phenanthroline colorimetric method


0

100

200

300

400

500

1 2 3 4

fFe

mg

/Kg

Boca Raton test Results compare with chen.1999

Fe soil test withoutrover

Fe with Rover

Spodosols(0.033*10^4)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 1 2 3 4 6 24 48 54 72

Fe(

C/C

0)

Time (hours)

Iron reading in Boca Soil

Sample1

Sample2


Test for Polk County Soils

• 3 samples for each one of the 2 samples collected in May 11-2011 for Iron digestion Hot Block experiment are in process

• 2 Aquariums of the SE and NW landfill soil which was collected in May 11-2011 are built already

• The 2 which were collected in November are in the drying process

6


Tests with Polk County Soils

• 4 Aquariums for the soils Collected from Lakeland landfill.

• Same Construction were adopted for Boca tests.

• SE & NE soil samples were sandy profile which enable setting them quickly in their 2 aquariums.

• SE & SW were need further process as they were clay constructed soil.

• Soils had been dried for 24 hour with 100 degree Celsius



Tests with Polk County Soils

• 4 samples were homogenized with a hammer and added to 2 aquaria

• 94 mg/L Iron has been created FeCl2 with HCl

• 4 Aquaria were saturated with iron for 1 day

• 4 Aquaria tests were started on 10/31/2012



Testing Results

• Spectrophotometer test conducted and samples collected 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 & 12 hours

• The results show fast decreasing after 1 hour of running the experiment in 4 aquaria

• Iron reading were 0.11 - 0.08 mg/L for the 4 test experiments after 1 hour running and keep decreasing through time


0 1 12FE 94.3 0.1195 0.0909

0

50

100

Iro

n

Fe for NE 05/11/11

0 1 12FE 94.3 0.08969 0.05764

0

50

100

Iro

n

Fe for SE 05/11/11

0 1 12FE 94.3 0.08 0.0933

0

50

100

Iro

n

Fe for SW 11/9/11

0 1 12FE 94.3 0.08 0.04

0

50

100

Iro

n

Fe for SE 11/9/11

7



Step to be Achieved

• Keep collecting samples to see the iron development

• Determine the reaction time needed for adequate Iron removal using GCW

• Develop design criteria for GCW for iron removal



I Have Questions for YOU

• Do you have any knowledge of design equations that govern groundwater circulation well (GCW) systems or sparging wells?

• Do you have any suggestions for an appropriate test method to speciate the forms of iron, Fe(II) and Fe(III), in groundwater and soils?

• Where else is iron reductive dissolution a problem?

• What are the costs associated with remediation of iron dissolution?



2. “Onsite Treatment of Leachate Using Energized Processes”

Frank Youngman, BS/MS StudentDepartment of Civil, Environmental & Geomatics Engineering



Problems with Leachate

Turbidity

Elevated TDS, COD,

NH3

High COD/BOD

ratio

pH toxicity

Heavy metalsPb, As, Cd, Hg

Quantity and quality highly

variable

OdorPathogens

42

8


What will we do with leachate in the future?

Hauling

POTWs Deep Injection Wells

Pretreatment


One Solution

• Pre-treatment on-site

• Advanced oxidation using ultraviolet light activation (Energized processes)

• FAU has investigated photochemical iron mediated aeration (PIMA) and TiO2 photocatalysis

• And TiO2 photocatalysis seems to be promising



Titanium dioxide


Hydrogen

Peroxide

Photon (UV)Hydroxyl Radical

Contaminant

Copyright © Trojan Technologies Inc. All Rights Reserved

Water

How Do Energized Processes Work?


h+

e‐Mn+

(aq)

M0(s)

[ Photoreduction ]

+

hν[ Photooxidation ]

Oxygen

Water

TitaniumDioxide

9


Titanium Dioxide MechanismTiO2TiO2

O2 UV O.

2

H+

O.

2 HO.

2

H2O OHO.

2 HO.

2 O2 H2O2

HO.

2 H2O2TiO2 H+

TiO2

H2O2TiO2 TiO2

.OHOH

49 Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, November 2, 2012

Procedures


Wiles RdP

owerlin

e Road

Leachate Sample

•Location

•Monarch Hill, formerly known as CDSL

•Pompano Beach, FL

•Sample Point

•Waste Management•South East Step-Up Station



Leachate/ TiO2

CE 584 Falling Film Reactor

• Reservoir (10L)

• Temperature Sensor

• Pump (360 L/h)

• Flow Regulator

• Sampling Port

• 3 Way Valve

• Weir Compartment

• UV Power Source (120W)


Mechanical Improvements• Catalyst

build-up in pump

• Installed a 3-way valve to allow flushing of the pump

10


Temperature Control• VWR Recirculating Cooler

1150S

• 13 L Capacity

• Temp: -30°C to 150°C

• Filled with Dynalene HC-50 (hydrocoolant)


Temperature Curves

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 50 100 150 200 250

Temperature (C)

Time (minutes)

Temp. with Recirculating Cooler


Parameters• COD/ Alkalinity Testing

• Leachate Sample Volume (8L)

• Degussa P25 TiO2 Catalyst• 4, 16, 25, 30, 40 g/L

• Constant Aeration

• Recirculating Cooler (-9.9°C)

• 4 - Hour Test Segments

• Flow Rate: 300 L/hr

• UV intensity:• 0.0110 - 0.365 mW/cm2


Sample Testing


Experimental Protocol

59 Presentation to the HCSHWM Technical Advisory GroupBoca Raton, FL, November 2, 2012

60

11


Experiment #1

• Leachate collected 9/23/2011

• 4 grams TiO2 per liter leachate

• CODo = 6250mg/L

• Ammoniao = 1710 mg/L as NH3-N

• Alkalinityo = 4630 mg/L as CaCO3

• Coloro = 1125 Platinum Cobalt Units (PCU)

• pH = 8.35

• 44 hour total run


What is the limiting parameter?• Clearly COD

is the limiting parameter

• COD is primary concern for determining reaction kinetics

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

C/Co

Time (hours)

C/Co comparing degradation of COD, Ammonia, and Alkalinity

COD Ammonia Alkalinity Linear (COD) Expon. (Ammonia) Expon. (Alkalinity)


Reaction Kinetics – Zero Order• Initial Values

• 4.0 g/L TiO2

• CODo = 6250 mg/L

• Zero order kinetics

k = - 56 mg/L-hour

• Estimated time for 100% COD removal would be 112 hours and 97 hours to get to 800 mg/L

y = ‐56.005x + 6261.3R² = 0.9825

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

COD (mg/L)

Time (hours)

Experiment #1 (4g/L) COD Concentration


Reaction Kinetics – First Order• Initial Values

• 4.0 g/L TiO2

• CODo = 6250 mg/L

• First order kinetics

k = - 0.0112 hour-1

• Displays a slightly higher correlation coefficient than zero order• Estimated time to

reach 800 mg/L = 180 hours

y = ‐0.0112x + 8.7589R² = 0.9832

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

8.6

8.7

8.8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

lnCOD

Time (hours)

Experiment #1 (4g/L) ln(COD Concentration)


Reaction Kinetics – Second Order• Initial Values

• 4.0 g/L TiO2

• CODo = 6250 mg/L

• Second order kinetics

k = 0.000002 L/mg-hour

• Displays a lower correlation coefficient than first and zero order

y = 2E‐06x + 0.0002R² = 0.9779

0

0.00005

0.0001

0.00015

0.0002

0.00025

0.0003

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

1/COD

Time (hours)

Experiment #1 (4g/L) 1/(COD Concentration)


Experiment #2



• CODo = 5270mg/L




• pH = 7.52


12


Reaction Kinetics – Zero Order• Initial Values

• 16 g/L TiO2

• CODo = 5270 mg/L

• Zero order kinetics

k = - 52 mg/L-hour

• Estimated time for 100% COD removal would be 98 hours and 83 hours to get to 800 mg/L

y = ‐52.229x + 5140R² = 0.9776

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

COD (mg/L)

Time (hours)

Experiment #2 (16g/L) COD Concentration



• 16 g/L TiO2

• CODo = 5270 mg/L


k = - 0.0129 hour-1

• Displays a higher correlation coefficient than zero order• Estimated time to

reach 800 mg/L = 150 hr


Reaction Kinetics – Second Order• Initial Values

• 16 g/L TiO2

• CODo = 5270 mg/L

• Second order kinetics

k = 0.000003 L/mg-hour

• Displays a lower correlation coefficient than first order, but higher than zero order

• First order takes precedence


Experiment #3



• CODo = 5360mg/L




• pH = 7.54




• 25 g/L TiO2

• CODo = 5360 mg/L


k = - 0.0158 hour-1

• Estimated time to reach 800 mg/L = 120 hr

y = ‐0.0158x + 8.5351R² = 0.9749

7.8

7.9

8

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

8.6

8.7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

ln(COD)

Time (hours)

Experiment #3 (25g/L) ln(COD Concentration)


Experiments #4 & 5• Leachate collected 7/18/2012

• 40 g/L TiO2 (Exp. 4) and 30 g/L TiO2 (Exp. 5)

• CODo = 6560mg/L




• pH = 7.66


13


y = ‐0.0011x + 1R² = 0.9411

y = ‐0.0015x + 1R² = 0.963

y = ‐0.0022x + 1R² = 0.9235

y = ‐0.0021x + 1R² = 0.9193

y = ‐0.0018x + 1R² = 0.9509

0.94

0.95

0.96

0.97

0.98

0.99

1

1.01

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

COD lnC/lnCo

Time (hours)

COD lnC/lnCo

4 g/L 16 g/L 25 g/L 40 g/L 30 g/L

Linear (4 g/L) Linear (16 g/L) Linear (25 g/L) Linear (40 g/L) Linear (30 g/L)


Rate constant comparisonTiO2 Dosage (g/L) Rate constant (hr‐1)

4 ‐0.0102

16 ‐0.0127

25 ‐0.0167

30 ‐0.0146

40 ‐0.0160

• 25 g/L exhibits the largest rate constant


Catalyst Optimization for COD• Seems to

follow logarithmic pattern

• Next step is to try 10 g/L TiO2

to see if it falls on the curve

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

% COD Rem

oval at 24 hours

TiO2 dosage (g/L)

Catalyst Optimization Curve


Ammonia• 4 g/L shows

highest degradation

• k = -0.073/hr• Time to reach

25 mg/L = 58 hr

y = ‐0.0103x + 1R² = 0.9838

y = ‐0.0039x + 1R² = 0.9585

y = ‐0.004x + 1R² = 0.8967

y = ‐0.0035x + 1R² = 0.943

y = ‐0.0037x + 1R² = 0.9803

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

lnC/lnCo

Time (hours)

Ammonia (lnC/lnCo)

4 g/L 16g/L 25 g/L 40 g/L 30 g/L

Linear (4 g/L) Linear (16g/L) Linear (25 g/L) Linear (40 g/L) Linear (30 g/L)


Alkalinity• 4 g/L shows

highest degradation

• k = -0.078/hr

y = ‐0.0087x + 1R² = 0.9713

y = ‐0.0041x + 1R² = 0.844

y = ‐0.0028x + 1R² = 0.8301

y = ‐0.007x + 1R² = 0.9113

y = ‐0.0074x + 1R² = 0.9416

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

lnC/lnC0

Time (hours)

Alkalinity (lnC/lnC0)

4 g/L 16 g/L 25 g/L 40 g/L 30 g/L

Linear (4 g/L) Linear (16 g/L) Linear (25 g/L) Linear (40 g/L) Linear (30 g/L)


Conclusions

• At optimal TiO2 dosage to date, it would take approximately 120 hours to achieve 800 mg/L COD target for sewer disposal• Ammonia: 58 hours to achieve 25 mg/L target

• Alkalinity: 29 hours for 90% removal

• Color: 105 hours for 90% removal

14


Next Steps• Optimize Catalyst

• Attempt next experiment at 10 g TiO2/L to determine if the COD removal follows the logarithmic pattern of optimization

• Catalyst Recovery• 3 bag sizes (5, 10 and 20 micron)

will be tested for recovery efficiency after approximately 10 hours of treatment

• Cost Analysis• Understand Alkalinity

Dependence



Open Forum


I Have Questions for YOU

• Are there more contaminants of great concern? • Treatment targets?

• How much does your leachate management cost?• Will this process be cost competitive?

• How much leachate is produced at your landfills?

• Do you want us to test your leachate?


Huddle.net

Acknowledgements

• TAG Members

• Daniel Meeroff, PhD, EI

• Andre McBarnette

• Richard Reichenbach

• Jeff Roccapriore

• Florida Atlantic University


Sponsors

15


85

website: http://labees.civil.fau.edu

technical advisory group

Documents