Utah State University

DigitalCommons@USU
All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies, School of

11-1-2011

Optimization of Dissolved Air Flotation for Algal

Harvesting at the Logan, Utah Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Andrew R. Elder
Utah State University

Recommended Citation
Elder, Andrew R., "Optimization of Dissolved Air Flotation for Algal Harvesting at the Logan, Utah Wastewater Treatment Plant"
(2011). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1072.
[Link]

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate
Studies, School of at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for
inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized
administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please
contact [Link]@[Link].
 OPTIMIZATION OF DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION FOR ALGAL HARVESTING AT THE

LOGAN, UTAH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

by

Andrew R. Elder

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in

Biological Engineering

Approved:

________________________________ ________________________________
Dr. Ronald Sims Dr. Byard Wood
Major Professor Committee Member

________________________________ ________________________________
Mr. Issa Hamud Dr. Mark R. McLellan
Committee Member Vice President for Research and
Dean of the School of Graduate Studies

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

Logan, Utah

2011
 ii

Copyright Andrew Elder 2011

All Rights Reserved

 iii
ABSTRACT

Optimization of Dissolved Air Flotation for Algal Harvesting at the

Logan, Utah Wastewater Treatment Plant

by

Andrew R. Elder, Master of Science

Utah State University, 2011

Major Professor: Dr. Ronald Sims

Department: Biological Engineering

This research evaluated dissolved air flotation (DAF) as a separation method for algae

and phosphorus from municipal wastewater at the City of Logan, Utah Wastewater Reclamation

Facility. DAF uses the supersaturation of air to raise suspended algae and other particles to the

surface, where they can be easily removed. DAF, in conjunction with chemical coagulants and

flocculants, can approach 95% algae and phosphorus removal. The algae removed using the

DAF process will be used in the production of biofuels and bioplastics.

A pilot DAF unit was used to determine the optimum alum dose for total phosphorus

(TP) and algae removal. In addition, a bench-scale jar test unit was used to study the effects of

various alum and polymer doses on removal efficiencies at different times of the day. An

optimal alum dose was found to be 30 mg/L based on results from both the pilot and bench-

scale units. No advantage to adding polymer was found.

Algae removal efficiencies on the pilot DAF ranged from 68-70%, and the effluent algae

concentration was reduced to 10 mg/L. Approximately 65% of the total phosphorus was

removed, from 1.1 to 0.4 mg/L, which is low enough to meet regulations anticipated to be
 iv
promulgated by the state of Utah. Using the assumption that the molar weight of algae is 3,550

g/mole, the molar ratio of Al/TSS was found to be 30.1 and the molar ratio of Al/TP was found

to be 7.5.

Extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) excreted by algal cells act as a natural

flocculant and may allow for chemical usage to be minimized. Autoflocculation and

bioflocculation, natural processes caused by EPS production and an increased pH level, were not

observed to be a significant factor.

The chemical dosing rates provide the City of Logan with basic operational parameters

for a full-scale (15 million gallons per day) DAF plant, providing an effluent phosphorus level

below 0.5 mg/L. The alum will cost $1,118 per day, with a daily electrical cost of approximately

$149. This full-scale DAF plant would harvest 1,563 kg of algal biomass per day, with a cost per

kilogram of algae at $0.81.

(161 pages)
 v
PUBLIC ABSTRACT

Optimization of Dissolved Air Flotation for Algal Harvesting at the

Logan, Utah Wastewater Treatment Plant

Research being completed at the Logan, UT wastewater treatment plant could provide a

locally-sourced gasoline replacement by collecting algae that grows naturally. This process

would also provide the City of Logan with a method to meet certain standards set by the state of

Utah.

Problem and proposed solution:

The water leaving Logans wastewater treatment plant has high levels of phosphorus

and nitrogen, two elements that are found in all wastewater treatment plants. These two

substances need to be controlled, because they kill fish and cause pond scum to grow in

recreational reservoirs downstream. A unique method has been found to remove these

elements.

The wastewater treatment plant is a lagoons design, consisting of a series of large,

open-air ponds. Algae naturally grow in these ponds, and consume the phosphorus and

nitrogen found inside. If the algae can be harvested from the ponds, the phosphorus and

nitrogen can be removed as well. As an added benefit, the algae can be used to create a

gasoline replacement, known as biodiesel.

Current research:

One research project completed at the Logan wastewater treatment plant was the

optimization of a method to harvest this algae. Andrew Elder worked with a device called a

Dissolved Air Flotation, or DAF, unit. This machine uses microscopic bubbles to lift the algae to

the surface of the water, where it can be easily removed. (Removing the algae removes much of
 vi
the phosphorus). The phosphorus not in the algae cells is removed by the small amount of

chemical additives required for the DAF process to work.

The goal of this research project was to determine the optimum amount of chemicals

required for proper algae harvesting. Additionally, there is a possibility that chemicals naturally

secreted by the algae could help eliminate some additional chemical addition.

Two different methods were used to determine the proper chemical addition. First, a

large DAF unit was used to determine the proper chemical dose. Next, a miniature DAF unit was

used to study different chemical doses at different times of day. There is evidence that different

amounts of sunlight could increase the quantity of these natural chemicals being produced.

Results:

The optimum amount of chemicals needed was determined to be 30 mg of aluminum

sulfate per liter. The naturally-produced chemicals were found to have no significant effect on

algae harvesting, at any time of day.

Conclusion:

This project demonstrated the ability for a DAF system to successfully harvest algae

from the Logan wastewater treatment plant, with only minimal chemical addition. Along with

meeting state of Utah requirements, this process could allow the Logan wastewater treatment

plant to collect enough algae to create a significant amount of a locally-based, sustainable

automobile fuel. Enough algae could be grown to fuel all of the City trucks with biodiesel. This

process would save the City money and be beneficial to the environment at the same time.
 vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am very grateful for all of the support provided throughout the course of my research.

This includes USTAR (the Utah Science Technology and Research initiative) and the U.S.

Department of Energy for funding my studies, as well as the Biological Engineering Department,

the Sustainable Waste-to-Bioproducts Engineering Center, and the City of Logan Environmental

Department. I would also like to thank my thesis committee, Dr. Ronald Sims, Dr. Byard Wood,

and Mr. Issa Hamud, for their advice and support during the last two years. Other colleagues

have been very helpful, including Dr. Daniel Dye, Reese Thompson, Erick Griffiths, Nathan

Israelsen, Katie Glaittli, Alexa Lunt, Brian Smith, and Zak Dymock.

I would finally like to thank my wife, Caitlin, for her love and support over the last two

years.

Andrew R. Elder
 viii
CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................iii

PUBLIC ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... xiii

LIST OF SYMBOLS, NOTATION, AND DEFINITIONS ....................................................................... xix

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ..................................................................... 4

2.1 Algal Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Eutrophication and the Logan Lagoons ........................................................................ 5
2.3 Current plan by the city of Logan ................................................................................. 8
2.4 Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) ...................................................................................... 10
2.5 Bioflocculation and DAF ............................................................................................. 14
2.6 Research Objectives ................................................................................................... 19

3. PILOT DAF UNIT ........................................................................................................................ 21

3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 21
3.2 Materials and Methods .............................................................................................. 23

3.2.1 Overall sampling procedure ................................................................................ 23

3.2.2 Sampling plan ...................................................................................................... 25
3.2.3 Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................... 26

3.3 Results and Discussion................................................................................................ 26

4. PILOT DAF UNIT: A TROUBLESHOOTING GUIDE ....................................................................... 35

4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 35
4.2 Materials and Methods .............................................................................................. 35
4.3 Results and Discussion................................................................................................ 35
4.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 37
 ix
5. JAR TEST UNIT .......................................................................................................................... 38

5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 38
5.2 Materials and Methods .............................................................................................. 39

5.2.1 Jar Test Operation ............................................................................................... 39

5.2.2 Scaled-down total phosphorus testing ................................................................ 40
5.2.3 Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................... 41

5.3 Results and Discussion................................................................................................ 42

5.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 46

6. THE EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ON ALUM AND POLYMER DOSING RATES .... 48

6.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 48
6.2 Materials and Methods .............................................................................................. 48

6.2.1 Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................... 51

6.3 Results and Discussion................................................................................................ 52

6.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 65

7. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 67

7.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 67
7.2 Results and Discussion................................................................................................ 67
7.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 72

8. FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS ....................................................................................................... 73

9. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................... 75

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 77

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................. 81

APPENDIX A: NUTRIENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AT THE LOGAN LAGOONS ........... 82

A1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 82

A1.2 Materials and Methods ........................................................................................ 83
A1.3 Results and Discussion ......................................................................................... 86
A1.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 92

APPENDIX B: SCRIPT FOR WEATHER DATA COLLECTION FROM CAMPBELL SCIENTIFIC ... 93

APPENDIX C: SAS PROGRAMS ........................................................................................... 94

 x
C1: Steady state calculations for pilot DAF unit ............................................................ 94
C2: Initial data for pilot DAF unit ................................................................................ 102
C3: Alum dose determination with jar test unit ......................................................... 107
C4: Environmental effects on jar test unit operation ................................................. 117

APPENDIX D: CALCULATIONS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................................... 141

 xi
LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Comparison of biodiesel yields of various crops (Chisti, 2007) ................................................ 2

2 Required TMDL reduction for the Logan Lagoons (SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2010) . 8

3 Statistical groupings for pilot DAF unit steady-state testing .................................................. 27

4 Statistical groupings for TSS in pilot DAF unit influent ........................................................... 29

5 Statistical groupings for TSS in pilot DAF unit effluent ........................................................... 30

6 Statistical groupings for TP in pilot DAF unit influent ............................................................. 32

7 Statistical groupings for TP in pilot DAF unit effluent ............................................................. 33

8 List of attempts to fix pilot DAF unit....................................................................................... 36

9 DAF troubleshooting checklist................................................................................................ 37

10 Statistical groupings for TSS removal in jar test unit ............................................................ 44

11 Statistical groupings for TP removal in jar test unit .............................................................. 45

12 Statistical groupings for TP removal, 8:20 AM ..................................................................... 53

13 Statistical groupings for TP removal, 9:03 AM ..................................................................... 54

14 Statistical groupings for TP removal, 11:02 AM ................................................................... 55

15 Statistical groupings for TP removal, 12:01 PM .................................................................... 55

16 Statistical groupings for TP removal, 2:18 PM ...................................................................... 56

17 Statistical groupings for TSS removal, 8:20 AM .................................................................... 57

18 Statistical groupings for TSS removal, 9:03 AM .................................................................... 57

19 Statistical groupings for TSS removal, 11:02 AM .................................................................. 58

20 Statistical groupings for TSS removal, 12:01 PM .................................................................. 59

21 Statistical groupings for TSS removal, 2:18 PM .................................................................... 59

 xii
22 Chemical costs for pilot and full-scale DAF unit ................................................................... 68

23 Performance and unit cost values for pilot DAF unit ............................................................ 69

24 Electrical costs on a full-scale DAF unit ................................................................................ 69

25 Cost comparison of full-scale DAF unit and full-scale clarifier .............................................. 70

D-1 Calculations for economic analysis ................................................................................... 141

 xiii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Scenedesmus and Chlorella, two common algae species ......................................................... 4

2 The Logan Lagoons (the wastewater treatment facility for Logan, Utah) ................................ 6

3 Algal bloom in the Logan Lagoons ............................................................................................ 7

4 Effluent from the Logan Lagoons ............................................................................................. 7

5 Current Logan Lagoons flow diagram ....................................................................................... 9

6 Potential Logan Lagoons flow diagram..................................................................................... 9

7 Diagram of pilot DAF unit operating at the Logan Lagoons (top view) ................................... 10

8 Potential energy between two similarly-charged particles, as a function of distance (Harrison

et al., 2003)............................................................................................................................ 12

9 Comparison of coagulation observed in jar tests using Al(III) at constant pH (Faust and Aly,
1998) ..................................................................................................................................... 13

10 Algal removal efficiency via autoflocculation vs. pH (Sukenik and Shelef, 1984) ................. 17

11 Flocculation tanks on pilot DAF unit ..................................................................................... 21

12 Compressor and flotation tank on pilot DAF Unit ................................................................ 22

13 Skimmer on top of flotation tank on pilot DAF unit ............................................................. 23

14 Steady-state testing on pilot DAF unit .................................................................................. 26

15 Steady-state testing for pilot DAF unit (replicate #1) ........................................................... 27

16 TSS vs. alum dose, pilot DAF unit ......................................................................................... 28

17 TSS percent removal vs. alum dose, pilot DAF unit .............................................................. 28

18 TSS in pilot DAF unit influent ................................................................................................ 29

19 TSS in pilot DAF unit effluent................................................................................................ 30

20 TP vs. alum dose, pilot DAF unit ........................................................................................... 31

 xiv
21 TP percent removal vs. alum dose, pilot DAF unit ................................................................ 31

22 TP in pilot DAF unit influent ................................................................................................. 32

23 TP in pilot DAF unit effluent ................................................................................................. 33

24 Jar test unit in operation ...................................................................................................... 38

25 Standard curve for absorbance vs. TP concentration relationship (scaled-down TP test).... 42

26 TSS percent removal vs. alum dose, jar test unit.................................................................. 43

27 TP percent removal vs. alum dose, jar test unit ................................................................... 43

28 Statistical analysis of TSS removal data, jar test unit............................................................ 44

29 Statistical analysis of TP removal data, jar test unit ............................................................. 45

30 Solubility of aluminum at equilibrium with (a) gibbsite and (b) amorphous Al(OH) 3 (Faust
and Aly, 1998) ...................................................................................................................... 46

31 Filling jars in preparation for jar test unit operation ............................................................ 49

32 Sampling bucket in the Logan Lagoons ................................................................................ 50

33 TSS percent removal rates (July 21 and 26, 2011) ................................................................ 52

34 TP percent removal rates (July 21 and 26, 2011) ................................................................. 53

35 TP percent removal (July 21, 2011, 8:20 am) ....................................................................... 53

36 TP percent removal (July 26, 2011, 9:03 am) ....................................................................... 54

37 TP percent removal (July 21, 2011, 11:02 am) ..................................................................... 54

38 TP percent removal (July 26, 2011, 12:01 pm) ..................................................................... 55

39 TP percent removal (July 21, 2011 2:18 pm) ........................................................................ 56

40 TSS percent removal (July 21, 2011 8:20 am) ....................................................................... 56

41 TSS percent removal (July 26, 2011, 9:03 am) ...................................................................... 57

42 TSS percent removal (July 21, 2011, 11:02 am) .................................................................... 58

43 TSS percent removal (July 26, 2011, 12:01 pm).................................................................... 58

 xv
44 TSS percent removal (July 21, 2011, 2:18 pm) ..................................................................... 59

45 Algal flocculation in jar test unit; 30 mg/L alum only (left) and 30 mg/L alum with 0.3 mg/L
polymer (right) ..................................................................................................................... 60

46 Algal flocculation in jar test unit; 30 mg/L alum with 0.6 mg/L polymer (left) and 30 mg/L
alum with 1.0 ....................................................................................................................... 61

47 Float comparison in jar test unit; 30 mg/L alum only (left) and 30 mg/L alum and 1.0 mg/L
polymer (right) ..................................................................................................................... 62

48 TSS percent removal with 30mg/L alum vs. air temperature ............................................... 63

49 Light intensity on July 21, 2011 ............................................................................................ 63

50 TSS percent removal with 30 mg/L vs. irradiance ................................................................ 64

51 TSS percent removal with 30 mg/L vs. pH ............................................................................ 64

52 pH in Logan Lagoons effluent (July 4, 2011) ......................................................................... 65

A-1 Small-scale raceway growing an algal culture ..................................................................... 84

A-2 TSS vs. day of operation, small raceway with nutrient addition (Sept 16 - Oct 15, 2010)... 86

A-3 pH vs. day of operation, small raceway with nutrient addition (Sept 16 - Oct 15 2010) ..... 87

A-4 TSS vs. day of operation, small raceway without nutrient addition (Nov 3-26 2010) ......... 87

A-5 pH vs. date, small raceway without nutrient addition (Nov 3-26 2010) ............................. 88

A-6 Seasonal TSS averages in the Logan Lagoons ...................................................................... 89

A-7 Seasonal TP averages in the Logan Lagoons ....................................................................... 89

A-8 Seasonal pH averages in the Logan Lagoons ....................................................................... 90

A-9 Settleable solids in Logan Lagoons effluent (July 6, 2011) .................................................. 90

A-10 Air temperature in Logan, UT (Oct 2010 - July 2011) ........................................................ 91

A-11 Solar radiation in Logan, UT (Oct 2010 - July 2011) .......................................................... 91

B-1 Computer script for daily weather data collection ............................................................. 93

C-1 Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, input code (1 of 3) ......................................... 94
 xvi
C-2 Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, input code (2 of 3) ......................................... 95

C-3 Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, input code (3 of 3) ......................................... 95

C-4 Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, output code (1 of 5) ...................................... 96

C-5 Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, output code (2 of 5) ...................................... 97

C-6 Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, output code (3 of 5) ...................................... 98

C-7 Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, output code (4 of 5) ...................................... 99

C-8 Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, output code (5 of 5) .................................... 100

C-9 Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, output graphs (1 of 2) ................................. 100

C-10 Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, output graphs (2 of 2) ............................... 101

C-11 Initial data for pilot DAF unit, input code (1 of 4) ........................................................... 102

C-12 Initial data for pilot DAF unit, input code (2 of 4) ........................................................... 103

C-13 Initial data for pilot DAF unit, input code (3 of 4) ........................................................... 103

C-14 Initial data for pilot DAF unit, input code (4 of 4) ........................................................... 104

C-15 Initial data for pilot DAF unit, output code (1 of 4) ......................................................... 105

C-16 Initial data for pilot DAF unit, output code (2 of 4) ......................................................... 105

C-17 Initial data for pilot DAF unit, output code (3 of 4) ......................................................... 106

C-18 Initial data for pilot DAF unit, output code (4 of 4) ......................................................... 106

C-19 Alum dose determination with jar test unit, input code (1 of 6) ..................................... 107

C-20 Alum dose determination with jar test unit, input code (2 of 6) ..................................... 108

C-21 Alum dose determination with jar test unit, input code (3 of 6) ..................................... 109

C-22 Alum dose determination with jar test unit, input code (4 of 6) ..................................... 110

C-23 Alum dose determination with jar test unit, input code (5 of 6) ..................................... 111

C-24 Alum dose determination with jar test unit, input code (6 of 6) ..................................... 112

C-25 Alum dose determination with jar test unit, output code (1 of 6) .................................. 113
 xvii
C-26 Alum dose determination with jar test unit, output code (2 of 6) .................................. 114

C-27 Alum dose determination with jar test unit, output code (3 of 6) .................................. 114

C-28 Alum dose determination with jar test unit, output code (4 of 6) .................................. 115

C-29 Alum dose determination with jar test unit, output code (5 of 6) .................................. 116

C-30 Alum dose determination with jar test unit, output code (6 of 6) .................................. 116

C-31 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 8:20 am, input code (1 of 4) ..................... 117

C-32 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 8:20 am, input code (2 of 4) ..................... 118

C-33 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 8:20 am, input code (3 of 4) ..................... 118

C-34 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 8:20 am, input code (4 of 4) ..................... 119

C-35 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 8:20 am, output code (1 of 2) ................... 120

C-36 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 8:20 am, output code (2 of 2) ................... 121

C-37 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 9:03 am, input code (1 of 4) ..................... 122

C-38 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 9:03 am, input code (2 of 4) ..................... 122

C-39 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 9:03 am, input code (3 of 4) ..................... 123

C-40 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 9:03 am, input code (4 of 4) ..................... 123

C-41 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 9:03 am, output code (1 of 2) ................... 124

C-42 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 9:03 am, output code (2 of 2) ................... 125

C-43 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 11:02 am, input code (1 of 4) ................... 126

C-44 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 11:02 am, input code (2 of 4) ................... 127

C-45 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 11:02 am, input code (3 of 4) ................... 128

C-46 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 11:02 am, input code (4 of 4) ................... 128

C-47 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 11:02 am, output code (1 of 2) ................. 129

C-48 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 11:02 am, output code (2 of 2) ................. 130

C-49 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 12:01 pm, input code (1 of 4) ................... 131
 xviii
C-50 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 12:01 pm, input code (2 of 4) ................... 132

C-51 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 12:01 pm, input code (3 of 4) ................... 133

C-52 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 12:01 pm, input code (4 of 4) ................... 133

C-53 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 12:01 pm, output code (1 of 2) ................ 134

C-54 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 12:01 pm, output code (2 of 2) ................ 135

C-55 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 2:18 pm, input code (1 of 4) ..................... 136

C-56 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 2:18 pm, input code (2 of 4) ..................... 137

C-57 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 2:18 pm, input code (3 of 4) ..................... 138

C-58 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 2:18 pm, input code (4 of 4) ..................... 138

C-59 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 2:18 pm, output code (1 of 2) .................. 139

C-60 Environmental effects on jar test operation, 2:18 pm, output code (2 of 2) .................. 140
 xix
LIST OF SYMBOLS, NOTATION, AND DEFINITIONS

Al aluminum
Al2(SO4)3 - 18H2O aluminum sulfate
Al2O3 aluminum oxide
alum another term for aluminum sulfate
BOD biological oxygen demand (mg/L)
o
C degrees Celsius
CO2 carbon dioxide
DAF dissolved air flotation
DI water deionized water
DO dissolved oxygen concentration (mg/L)
effluent treated wastewater
EPS extracellular polymeric substance
o
F degrees Fahrenheit
gpm gallons per minute
HCO3- bicarbonate
in Hg inches of mercury
influent untreated wastewater
K2HPO4 dipotassium phosphate
KH2PO4 monopotassium phosphate
L liter
mg/L milligrams per liter
MGD million gallons per day
mL milliliters (one thousandth of a liter)
mL/L milliliters per liter
N nitrogen
NaNO3 sodium nitrate
NaOH sodium hydroxide
nm nanometer (one billionth of a meter)
OH- hydroxide
P phosphorus
PhosVer 3 a reagent used in the Hach Test 'N Tube Total P kit
PPFD photosynthetic photon flux density (moles photons/m2/sec)
psi pounds per square foot
r a distance unit
R2 correlation coefficient
 xx
rpm revolutions per minute
scfh standard cubic feet per hour
T-Floc AE-204 synthetic anionic polymer, manufactured by Thatcher Chemical
TP total phosphorus concentration (mg/L)
TSS total suspended solids (mg/L)
UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality
L microliter (one millionth of a liter)
m micrometer (one millionth of a meter)
VOC volatile organic compounds
VS volatile solids (g/L)
W/m2 watts per square meter
% wt/wt percentage a substance is of the solute, on a weight basis
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Our current dependence on petroleum-based fuels is not sustainable (Chisti, 2007;

Demirbas, 2009; Hill et al., 2006; Pimentel and Patzek, 2005). There is only a finite quantity of

oil present, and it will eventually be depleted (Adelman, 1990; Chisti, 2007; Demirbas, 2009;

Pimentel and Patzek, 2005). As supplies start to dwindle, prices will drastically increase, causing

serious economic damage (Demirbas, 2009; Hirsch, 2008; Kilian, 2008; Ragauskas et al., 2006).

Additionally, fossil fuels contribute to the increasing levels of greenhouse gases in our

atmosphere (Chisti, 2007; Brandt and Farrell, 2007; DeLuchi, 1991; Demirbas, 2009). A viable

option to fossil fuels is needed for both economic and environmental stability. Biofuels, derived

from oil crops, is one such option.

Biofuels have the potential to replace fossil fuels for many uses, and have a number of

advantages. They are renewable; it is common for microalgae to double their biomass in 24

hours (Chisti, 2007). They are also carbon-neutral (Chisti, 2008; Fargione et al., 2008; Ragauskas

et al., 2006; Tilman et al., 2006). Any carbon dioxide released from the burning of biofuels will

be reabsorbed in the creation of more fuel. This energy source would also decrease our

dependence on foreign sources of oil, as well as providing additional domestic jobs. Finally, the

creation of these biofuels could have advantageous side effects, including the treatment of

wastewater.

However, the dominant biofuel in the United States is corn ethanol (Demirbas, 2009;

Kim and Dale, 2005). This poses a number of problems, the first being the relatively low energy

density of corn per acre. In order for 50% of the current domestic transport needs to be offset

by corn ethanol, 846% of the existing US cropland would have to be used for this purpose

(Chisti, 2007). Additionally, the use of corn as a fuel source competes with its use as a food
 2
source. For these and other reasons, there is an interest in finding alternative, more sustainable

biofuel sources.

Table 1
Comparison of biodiesel yields of various crops (Chisti, 2007)

Algae have the potential of replacing corn as an effective, renewable biofuel in the

United States due to several reasons. Algae (along with cyanobacteria and diatoms) are

inherently more efficient solar energy collectors. They have a 6-12 fold energy yield advantage

compared to terrestrial plants, due to increased solar energy conversion efficiency, the ability to

live in a greater range of photon flux, and are more efficient capturing light along their entire

growth cycle. Additionally, algae do not have the structure required for higher plants, like

cellulose, hemi-cellulose, and ligin. This eliminates the need for these polymers to be broken

down during biofuel production. Finally, algae have a large ecological and metabolic diversity.

With over 4,000 species of cyanobacteria alone, this variety allows for the selection of algal

species that are properly adapted to local environments (Dismukes et al., 2008).

Other studies have observed that there is potential for an algal-biofuel economy to

succeed, due to available land, water and CO2 resources. Algae can be incorporated into
 3
wastewater treatment processes very easily. An algal culture can use the wastewater for

nutrients, as well as absorb CO2 from the air. The algae can be continuously harvested for oil

due to its high growth rate, and any waste biomass can be reused as feed material for the algal

culture (Behzadi and Farid, 2007).

However, this optimism must be tempered with a few facts. In order for algae-based fuels

to become reality, their high cost must be surmounted (Sheehan et al., 1998). There is a lack of

an efficient method to harvest this algal biomass, because of the small size of the individual

cells, the large quantities of water that must be treated to collect this biomass, and the algal

cultures similar density to water (Zhang et al., 2010). There is no harvesting method that works

perfectly in every case, so the selection of the right process and the optimization of this process

is of upmost importance (Wang et al., 2008).

 4
CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

2.1 Algal Characteristics

Algae are defined as any organisms with chlorophyll a and without roots, stems, or

leaves. Cyanobacteria, formerly known as blue-green algae, are closely related to algae, even

though they are prokaryotic organisms. Microalgae are primarily found in water, but are also

found on the surface of soils all over the world (Richmond, 2004).

Fig. 1. Scenedesmus and Chlorella, two common algae species

As a whole, algal cells range in size from 3-15 m (Bare et al., 1975), and have a wide

range of cellular organization and structure. Microalgae can be unicellular, colonial, or

filamentous. Most of the unicellular algae are nonmotile, but those species that move usually

do so via flagella. The microalgae that form colonies can also be either motile or nonmotile.

Many filamentous algal species have the ability to move under their own power, usually by

rotation or creeping (Richmond, 2004).

It has been established that in general, algae grow faster in warm temperatures

(Goldman and Carpenter, 1974). Increasing the algae population has a number of significant
 5
effects on its growth solution. First, since gaseous oxygen is a product of photosynthesis, the

dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration will increase. Also, since photosynthesis requires the

uptake of carbon dioxide, an increased number of dissolved bicarbonates (HCO3-) will be split,

releasing carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydroxide ions (OH-). The increased concentration of

hydroxide ions causes the pH to increase (Larsdotter et al., 2007). A higher DO concentration

and pH is evidence of increased algal growth (Griffiths et al., 2009; Sawyer et al., 2003). This

higher pH level may help with the flocculation of an algae culture; this phenomenon, called

autoflocculation, will be discussed later.

2.2 Eutrophication and the Logan Lagoons

For rural and small communities in the United States, the most popular and cost

effective process of wastewater treatment is the lagoon method. These lagoons usually cost

less than half as much as other methods and require less maintenance (Wolverton and

McDonald, 1979). This is the design of the treatment plant operating in Logan, UT. This facility

serves Logan and the nearby cities of Nibley, Providence, River Heights, North Logan, Hyde Park,

and Smithfield, all part of Cache Valley. This system consists of a series of seven facultative

ponds, covering a total area of 460 acres. They are relatively shallow (around 5 feet deep), with

an anaerobic zone near the bottom and an aerobic zone near the surface. The annual average

flow is 15 million gallons per day (MGD) (City of Logan, UT, 2008), and a conservative estimate

of the biomass production is 14 tons per day (Griffiths et al., 2009). This lagoons system is able

to effectively remove the solids, biological oxygen demand (BOD), and pathogens from Cache

Valleys wastewater (Griffiths et al., 2009). This treatment plant could provide a valuable source

of algal biomass; however, there is a significant environmental impact that is caused by this

algae which must be addressed first.

 6

Fig. 2. The Logan Lagoons (the wastewater treatment facility for Logan, Utah)

The algae-inflicted changes in the DO concentration are serious because of

eutrophication. This is the addition or recycling of nutrients (such as nitrogen and phosphorus)

into bodies of water, and the effects of these nutrients. There are significant algal blooms

(concentrations of 500 cells per milliliter or greater) in the Logan Lagoons, which aid in the

treatment of the wastewater. However, they are also the primary cause of eutrophication

(Moellmer, 1974). The nitrogen consumed by the algae is eventually volatilized as ammonia,

and is therefore removed from the lagoon system. However, phosphorus is non-volatile, and

will cycle in and out of the algae. Since algae are not being removed from the effluent currently,

all of the phosphorus in the Logan Lagoons is being discharged into Cutler Reservoir (Griffiths et

al., 2009). These algae will survive for a time downstream of the wastewater treatment plant

but will eventually die, releasing phosphorus back into the watershed. The decomposition of

the algal cells will also decrease the oxygen present in the water, which has a detrimental effect

on the ecosystem as a whole (Moellmer, 1974).

 7

Fig. 3. Algal bloom in the Logan Lagoons

Even though the wastewater is classified as weak wastewater, and the City currently

meets regulations on effluent phosphorus, this may not be the case in the near future. These

limits will be lowered to counteract the eutrophication of Cutler Reservoir, the eventual

destination of the Logan Lagoons effluent.

Fig. 4. Effluent from the Logan Lagoons

Recently determined UDEQ regulations will require a 61% reduction in total phosphorus

(TP) in the summer months and a 45% reduction during the winter months (SWCA

Environmental Consultants, 2010). The City of Logan has seven years to meet these
 8
requirements, and must find a way to lower the amount of phosphorus and nitrogen leaving the

Logan Lagoons.

Table 2
Required TMDL reduction for the Logan Lagoons (SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2010)

2.3 Current plan by the City of Logan

The City of Logan has two possible solutions to this problem. The first is a traditional

mechanical plant. This option would successfully remove the nitrogen and phosphorus from the

effluent, meeting the UDEQ requirements. However, this would not come without a high cost.

This plant would cost at least 180 million dollars, with a maximum price of 294 million dollars.

Even the $180 million price tag would cause Logans base utilities rate to jump from just over

$16 a month to over $60 (Benson, 2007).

An alternative method to meeting these environmental requirements is made possible

by the algae currently growing in the Logan Lagoons. This method would convert several of

these ponds into a raceway system.

These shallow, winding ponds would be optimized for algae growth, and would increase

the concentration already present in the Logan Lagoons. This increased concentration of algae,

which would uptake phosphorus as it grows, could then be harvested from the Logan Lagoons.

This would remove the phosphorus from the effluent, and would provide the City of Logan with

a valuable source of biomass. This algae could be converted into biodiesel, or converted into

biomethane with a digester. This system, properly optimized, could produce 35 tons of algae

daily. Over the course of a year, this would be enough biodiesel to power 140 City trucks, or
 9
enough methane to power 300 homes. All this could be done for a cost significantly less than

the previous option. The primary technology being considered for the harvesting of the algae is

dissolved air flotation (DAF).

Fig. 5. Current Logan Lagoons flow diagram

Fig. 6. Potential Logan Lagoons flow diagram

 10
2.4 Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)

Fig. 7. Diagram of pilot DAF unit operating at the Logan Lagoons (top view)

The City of Logan is considering the use of dissolved air flotation (DAF) to remove the

algae from the Logan Lagoons effluent. With this method, several mixing tanks allow the

necessary contact time for the coagulants and flocculants to mix with the effluent from the

Logan Lagoons. At the same time, a portion of the effluent from the DAF unit is saturated with

compressed air in a saturation tank, which dissolves the air into the liquid. This part of the

system is called the recycle loop. Once enough air has been dissolved in the saturation tank, the

liquid is pumped to the bottom of a large flotation tank, where it mixes with the Logan Lagoons

effluent that has had the contact with the chemicals. Bubbles are formed by the reduction in

pressure when this supersaturated water encounters atmospheric pressure. This causes the

dissolved air to leave solution, generating micro-bubbles (30-100 m diameter), which carry the

suspended matter to the surface. This matter is then gently skimmed off the surface and

removed (Rubio et al., 2002).

Flotation had its beginnings in ore processing, where it was used to selectively separate

different minerals. It has since been used in protein separation, analytical chemistry, the
 11
clarification of fruit juices, and the harvesting and removal of algae. Despite the use of the same

process, there are a number of differences between the use of flotation for ores and for

wastewater treatment. One of the most important involves the bubble size. Medium to large

bubble sizes (300-1500 m in diameter) are optimal for the flotation of coarse particles found in

mining operations. Flotation devices used in ore processing do not produce many bubbles

smaller than 600 m in diameter. For water treatment, however, micro bubbles (smaller than

100 m) are required to float the extremely small particles present (Rubio et al., 2002).

Since the first generation of DAF technology was developed in the 1920s, it has been

used in the clarification of wastewater, the separation of solids in drinking water treatment

plants, the separation of biological flocs, sludge thickening, the removal of organic solids,

dissolved oils, and VOCs, the treatment of ultra-fine minerals, and the removal of algae. DAF is

the most widely used flotation method for the treatment of effluents from industrial sites, and it

is projected that DAF applications will soon become even more prevalent in the waste

treatment and mining fields (Rubio et al., 2002).

Coagulation and flocculation are a necessary part of algae removal from wastewater

using dissolved air flotation. It is understood that algae cells are negatively charged, and

because of this, will repel each other. Coagulation, or charge neutralization, is necessary for

flocculation to proceed (Teixeira and Rosa, 2006). Flocculation is defined as the reversible

increase of the size of particles to be separated. This occurs when the London forces (weak,

intermolecular attractive forces) are not countered by the repulsive electrostatic forces

(Harrison et al., 2003).

Traditionally, the DAF process uses two different types of destabilizing agents (an

inclusive term for both coagulants and flocculants). The first category contains hydrolyzing

metal coagulants. These are commonly aluminum or ferric salts (currently, aluminum sulfate in
 12
the form Al2(SO4)3-18H2O is being used at the Logan Lagoons). The trivalent metal ions

hydrolyze water (split an H2O molecule into H+ and OH-) because of their strong ionic strength.

This happens when the Al3+ ion is surrounded by six water molecules, with the negatively-

charged hydroxide molecules closest to the aluminum. Since the aluminum ion has such a high

positive charge, electrons are drawn toward the metal from the water molecules. This causes

an H+ to break away from the water molecule, leaving the OH- attached to the aluminum atom.

These protons are then attracted to the negatively-charged particles, neutralizing their charge

(Gregory, 2006).

Fig. 8. Potential energy between two similarly-charged particles, as a function of distance

(Harrison et al., 2003)

Fig. 9 graphically illustrates how coagulation works with different colloid concentrations.

At the Logan Lagoons, the colloid concentration (the concentration of the algae) would be

represented by either S2 or S3. (S1 represents the turbidity in natural surface waters, which is

too low for the Logan Lagoons effluent). As the coagulant dose increases, Zone 2 is approached,

where there is a stoichiometric relationship between the algae and the alum. Further increasing
 13
the dose would then stop removing algae, but would eventually cause a sweep floc, where

virtually all of the algae would be removed from the system (Faust and Aly, 1998).

Fig. 9. Comparison of coagulation observed in jar tests using Al(III) at constant pH (Faust and
Aly, 1998)

When phosphate is being precipitated in this fashion, the following equation governs

the reaction (Hsu, 1975):

(1)

DAF is considered an effective alternative to conventional sedimentation (Chung et al.,

2000). However, algae still pose a problem for removal because of the small size of individual

algal cells (3-15 m), the dilute suspensions in which algae occur, and the low specific gravity of

the individual cell (Bare et al., 1975). Bare et al. (1975) completed some of the original research

on algae removal using dissolved air flotation in 1975, on algae growing in the Logan Lagoons at

a concentration of 100-125 mg/L. These researchers compared flotation without coagulants,

with ferric sulfate, and with aluminum sulfate. It was found that flotation without coagulant

usage was not sufficient to remove a substantial amount of algae. A pressurized recycle system,
 14
in conjunction with a small dose of ferric sulfate (85 mg/L) or aluminum sulfate (75 mg/L) was

sufficient to obtain 90% removal in an algal suspension of 100 mg/L (Bare et al., 1975).

More recently, DAF was compared to the conventional sedimentation of the

cyanobacteria Microcystis aeruginosa (Teixeira and Rosa, 2006). These researchers looked at

DAF with and without a pressurized recycle system, and the addition of either alum or WAC

(aluminum polyhydroxichlorosulphate). They discovered that DAF without coagulant addition

provides low cell removal and virtually no removal of dissolved organic matter. The pressurized

recycle system did not improve particle removal. This was explained by the lack of destabilized

particles; in fact, particle destabilization is more important to DAF effectiveness than large floc

size. The researchers found that a recycle system is vital, but increasing the percent recycle past

8% showed little improvement. They also found that sedimentation and DAF could both remove

M. aeruginosa, but DAF performed better. It provided very high chlorophyll a removal, lower

coagulant doses, slower coagulation speed, and stronger (but shorter) flocculation times than

sedimentation (Teixeira and Rosa, 2006).

2.5 Bioflocculation and DAF

Some cellular excretions may help DAF removal efficiency, especially with low chemical

dosage rates. Extracellular polymeric substances, also known as EPS, are excreted from algal

cells and are a major component in biofilms. They fill the intracellular space and serve as a

carbon and energy sink during stress situations, as well as environmental protection (against

changes in pH, water content, and hydraulic pressure, for example). They have a unique

composition, which makes them very effective in the settling, flocculation, dewatering, and

metal-binding characteristics in an activated sludge system (Tian et al., 2006). A large variety of

polymers have been found in EPS. Most of these are polysaccharides, but also include amino
 15
acids, amino sugars, phosphates, pyruvate, and glycoproteins. These polymers serve several

important functions that allow the cell to compete and survive in changing environments.

Several of the more important roles of EPS include: buffering against minute environmental

changes, the sequestration of nutrients, protection against toxins, attachment of the cell to

surfaces, and movement, just to name a few (Decho, 1990).

Extracellular polymeric substances have a characteristic that is especially important to

researchers working to harvest algae from the Logan Lagoons; their role in coagulation and

flocculation. These interactions are based on the following types of intermolecular attractive

forces: London forces, electrostatic interactions, and hydrogen bonds. London forces, also

known as dispersion forces, are intermolecular forces due to random, temporary dipoles formed

within a molecule. These momentary dipoles polarize nearby molecules, creating a temporary

attractive force. These forces drop off very quickly with distance (at a rate of 1/r 6), but are the

main force between hydrocarbon chains. Electrostatic interactions are the attractive forces

between ions and permanent dipoles. These interactions are relatively strong. Finally,

hydrogen bonds primarily exist between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms between different

water molecules, and are very common in polysaccharides (Tian et al., 2006).

Based on all three of these attractive forces, adhesion and cohesion occur between the

biomass and the EPS. The result of these interactions is a three-dimensional network of EPS,

providing a huge amount of surface area and structure. These structures (which are negatively

charged) can be bridged by cations to bring multiple flocs (large groups of cells) together (Tian

et al., 2006). This bioflocculation, the natural flocculation of algal cells due to EPS secretion

(Lavoie and de la Noue, 1987), may be enough to cause mass flocculation to take place (Tian et

al., 2006).
 16
The cellular production of EPS is affected by environmental conditions, primarily

irradiance and temperature. Wolfstein and Stal (2002) theorized that since photosynthesis is

dependent on light and temperature, EPS production would also be dependent on these two

conditions. A direct relationship was found between the amount of irradiance and the quantity

of excreted material. Additionally, a clear effect was found of temperature on biomass and EPS

production. The preferred temperature for growth was between 15-25oC (Wolfstein and Stal,

2002).

Additionally, the growth stage of an algal culture will also affect EPS production. Smith

and Underwood (2000) found that during logarithmic growth of five diatom species, the amount

of extracellular carbohydrates that consisted of polymeric substances was around 20%. During

the stationary growth phase, this percentage increased to 24-50%. In fact, the maximum EPS

production always occurred in the stationary phase. The researchers suggested that this release

during the stationary phase is a method of disposing of excess carbon from the cell. Also, in

periods of darkness up to three days, the EPS content in extracellular carbohydrates increased

to 85-99% (Smith and Underwood, 2000).

It appears that nutrient depletion can also have a positive effect on EPS production.

Staats et al. (2000) discovered that the limitation of nitrogen in culture of diatoms slowed algal

growth and increased EPS production. This was also found to be the case for phosphorus, but

not for silicon or iron (Staats et al., 2000).

Researchers have found EPS to influence bioflocculation in several different ways. The

first of these methods involves EPS interwinding, in which flocs are created due to the adhesive

nature of the EPS itself. The second involves hydrogen bonding between the EPS molecules and

the surrounding water. The final, and most significant, method may involve the bridging of

multivalent cations, including (Al3+) (Tian et al., 2006).

 17
Another mechanism has been described that causes spontaneous flocculation of algae;

autoflocculation. This phenomenon has been observed since the 1960s, and has been linked

with an increased pH due to photosynthetic CO2 consumption (Sukenik and Shelef, 1984). This

phenomenon was first studied by William Moellmer (1974) at the University of California,

Berkeley. When the pH in an algal culture increases (either as a natural consequence of

photosynthesis or intentionally with chemical addition), the culture becomes supersaturated

with respect to calcium and phosphate ions. This creates a calcium phosphate precipitate,

which will be positively charged if excess calcium ions are present. This precipitate will then

bind to the negatively-charged algae cells, causing mass flocculation (Lavoie and de la Noue,

1987).

Fig. 10. Algal removal efficiency via autoflocculation vs. pH (Sukenik and Shelef, 1984)

A decade later, Sukenik and Shelef (1983) studied the correlation between

autoflocculation and pH, and found that this phenomenon can be successful in certain pH

ranges. A removal efficiency of 40% was achieved at pH 3.0, when the algae cells had a zero net
 18
surface charge. Above pH 8.5, however, the efficiency for removal was over 95% (Sukenik and

Shelef, 1984).

Autoflocculation and bioflocculation are considered to be very promising for the

economical harvesting of algae. Chemical flocculation is also an effective method, but this is a

very expensive step that could be eliminated with natural processes. Additionally, the

physiological state of the algal culture influences both natural and chemical flocculation.

Chemical flocculation is most efficient at the end of the exponential growth phase, and quickly

looses efficiency as the culture enters endogenous growth. EPS growth, which is greatly

increased during this phase, may be masking the surface charge on the individual algae cells,

decreasing the chemical flocculation efficiency. If one can focus on the use of autoflocculation

and bioflocculation, this interference can be avoided altogether (Lavoie and de la Noue, 1987).

The knowledge of autoflocculation and bioflocculation has been advanced with the goal

of providing an inexpensive method of algal harvesting. Bioflocculation was shown to occur in

specific environmental conditions as far back as the 1960s (Pavoni et al., 1974). In 1965,

Golueke and Oswald demonstrated bioflocculation in an actively photosynthetic algal culture,

on a relatively warm day with plenty of sunlight (Golueke and Oswald, 1965). At this point,

however, the mechanism for bioflocculation was unknown. In 1967, Schuessler showed that

bioflocculation was most efficient during the declining growth phase, when the EPS production

and excretion was the highest. He hypothesized that the polysaccharide polymers would bridge

between algal cells (Pavoni et al., 1974; Schuessler, 1967).

More recently, Pavoni et al. (1974) set out to determine the feasibility of algal

harvesting from wastewater treatment plants using natural flocculation techniques. They

studied the relationship between algal growth, turbidity, and EPS production. If EPS is the cause
 19
of bioflocculation, they reasoned, then the turbidity of an algal culture should decrease as the

EPS increases (Pavoni et al., 1974).

They discovered a number of interesting facts. It appeared that flocculation is

controlled by the physiological state of the algal cells. Flocculation did not occur until the

culture had entered endogenous growth. Additionally, a direct relationship was found between

EPS production and flocculation. Finally, a reduction in the surface charge of the algal cells was

not a necessary first step to algal bioflocculation (Pavoni et al., 1974). This means that a

coagulant (such as aluminum sulfate) would not be required to cancel the surface charge, which

is currently required for chemically-treated DAF operation.

Bioflocculation via EPS secretion is dependent on a number of variables, including

temperature, irradiance, and growth stage of the algal culture. Autoflocculation is also

dependent on environmental conditions, especially the pH. These are both phenomena that

could be used with dissolved air flotation to minimize chemical usage required for efficient

harvesting.

2.6 Research Objectives

Three objectives were identified for evaluation of dissolved air flotation for algae and

phosphorus removal at the Logan, Utah wastewater treatment plant. First, determine the

dosage rate of alum for optimal algae and phosphorus removal, and if organic polymer addition

improves removal of algae and/or phosphorus. As part of this objective, determine if operating

the DAF without chemical addition and evaluating autoflocculation and bioflocculation is a

feasible and efficient method for algae removal. Second, determine if autoflocculation and

bioflocculation can improve the efficiency of DAF operation when chemical coagulants are used.
 20
Third, conduct an economic analysis for DAF operation for algae removal with and without

chemical addition.
 21
CHAPTER 3

PILOT DAF UNIT

3.1 Introduction

In order to determine the feasibility of a dissolved air flotation (DAF) unit to bring the

City of Logans total phosphorus discharge in compliance, WesTech Engineering loaned the City

a pilot DAF unit. This unit is built to process up to 60 gallons per minute (gpm), and measures

approximately 22 feet long by 12 feet wide. A diagram of the unit can be found below in Fig. 11,

Fig. 12, and Fig. 13.

Fig. 11. Flocculation tanks on pilot DAF unit

 22

Fig. 12. Compressor and flotation tank on pilot DAF Unit

In Fig. 11, the chemical mixing tanks are seen in the foreground. The white PVC piping

leading into the mixing tanks is the influent of the pilot DAF unit, and pulls liquid from the Logan

Lagoons effluent. In the background, the stainless steel flotation tank can be seen, which is

illustrated more clearly in Fig. 12.

The large rectangular tank in the background of Fig. 12 is the flotation tank, where the

micro-bubbles lift the algae flocs to the surface to be skimmed off. The cylindrical stainless steel

tank on its side, just in front of the flotation tank, is the saturation tank, where the recycle

stream is supersaturated with air. The five small hoses coming off of this tank bring the recycle

stream back into the flotation tank.

Fig. 13 details the top of the flotation tank, where the skimmer harvests the algae raised

to the surface by the dissolved air. The skimmer pulls the algae float toward the camera, where

it falls into another container.

 23

Fig. 13. Skimmer on top of flotation tank on pilot DAF unit

The goal of this phase of the research was to become familiar with the operation of the

pilot DAF unit and gather initial data on removal rates of both TSS and TP using varying alum

doses.

3.2 Materials and Methods

3.2.1 Overall sampling procedure

The general method for operating the sampling from the pilot DAF unit is as follows.

After turning on the influent pump that supplies the wastewater to the pilot DAF unit, and

making sure that it has filled the entire unit, turn on the recycle pump. A needle valve controls

the flow from the flotation tank to the recycle pump. This valve should be closed until -10 in Hg

backpressure is being exerted on the recycle pump. At that point, open the air control valve

between the recycle pump and the needle valve to allow the air to enter the recycle system.

Adjust the air control valve to the desired air flow rate in scfh (standard cubic feet per hour).
 24
After the air is flowing, adjust the flow of water out of the recycle pump for the proper

recycle rate, reading this value off of the flow meter. Once the proper recycle rate has been

reached, double check the air control valve from the previous step to make sure the correct

amount of air is still flowing.

At this point, the pressure in the saturation tank needs to be adjusted. The pressure in

the tank needs to be at least 50 psi, but the common operating pressure is 60 psi. The primary

method of adjusting the pressure is with the 4 ball valves at the end of the recycle system,

immediately before the lines re-enter the flotation tank. Carefully closing these valves will

increase the pressure in the saturation tank. Finally, open the saturation tank bleed valve

slightly, in order to let a bubble out of the system every few seconds. Nitrogen does not

saturate as well as oxygen, and this bleed valve helps prevent a buildup of nitrogen gas in the

saturation tank.

The final check is to climb up the attached ladder and look down at the top of the

flotation tank. The water should change to a milky color, indicating that the air is saturating in

the recycle system. If there is a boiling water effect at end of the flotation tank where the

recycle enters, there is an air buildup in the saturation tank. Crack the bleed valve open farther,

in order to get rid of this extra air.

After adjusting all of the parameters to the desired settings, wait 5 minutes and check

the parameters again. The pilot DAF unit reacts slowly, and sometimes it takes several minutes

for changes to become visible.

Once it is time to sample, use three 250 mL bottles for both the influent and the

effluent. The influent is collected as close to the influent pump as possible. Fill each of these

bottles with an influent sample. The effluent sample is collected from the liquid that is flowing

over the weirs in the flotation tank. Fill each of the three effluent bottles with a sample.
 25
Following Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater, a TSS test

was performed on each of the three samples (Eaton et al. 2005a). Additionally, a total

phosphorus test (using the acid persulfate digestion method) (Eaton et al. 2005b) was

performed in triplicate on these samples. These tests were performed using Hach Test N Tube

kits, which are based on the Standard Methods procedures. These tests allow the percent

removal of both suspended solids and total phosphorus concentration to be determined.

However, an assumption was made with respect to the TSS determination. When the aluminum

sulfate is added to the wastewater, the aluminum can form a precipitate with the phosphate in

the water (see equation 1 in section 2.4 DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION (DAF)). This precipitate, if

present in large enough quantities, could be adding to the TSS that was originally present in the

wastewater. However, for the purposes of this report, it is assumed that this additional TSS is

negligible. This same assumption was made in the important DAF research completed in 1975

at the Logan Lagoons by Bare et al. (1975).

3.2.2 Sampling plan

Before the optimum alum dose can be determined, the time for the pilot DAF unit to

reach a steady-state condition must be determined. To accomplish this, influent and effluent

samples will be taken immediately after the pilot DAF unit is operating, and every 15 minutes

thereafter, for a total of 90 minutes. Total suspended solids testing will be used to determine

algae removal efficiency.

After this steady-state time has been determined, the optimum alum dose will be

determined by varying the alum dose from 0-100 mg/L, in increments of 10 mg/L.
 26
3.2.3 Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis for this section was completed in SAS, a software package commonly

used in scientific applications. A generalized linear model was used to determine which values

being observed are considered statistically equivalent at a 5% significance level ( = 0.05).

Tukeys Studentized Range (HSD) was used to determine the statistical groupings.

When data is presented, the same letter on two data points indicates that the two

points are considered statistically equal, given the assumption described above. Additionally,

when present, error bars are equal to the standard deviation.

Further testing was completed to ensure that our assumption of independent and

identically distributed error terms was correct. The distribution of the error terms was checked,

to ensure normality. Also, the data was checked for heteroscedasticity (a phenomenon where

an error term trends larger or smaller as the factor levels change). If there was a normal

distribution, and no heteroscedasticity, then the data could be used for analysis.

3.3 Results and Discussion

The first test to be completed was the determination of the steady-state time for the

pilot DAF unit. In Fig. 14, the tests used to determine the steady-state time are displayed.

These tests were all completed in November 2010.

40
30
TSS (mg/L)

Replicate #1
20
Replicate #2
10
Replicate #3
0
Replicate #4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time after startup (min)

Fig. 14. Steady-state testing on pilot DAF unit

 27
40
35
30
TSS (mg/L) 25
20
15
10
5
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Time after startup (min)

Fig. 15. Steady-state testing for pilot DAF unit (replicate #1)

Table 3
Statistical groupings for pilot DAF unit steady-state testing
Time after Tukey
startup (min) Grouping
0 A
15 B
30 C
45 C
60 C
75 C
90 C

In Fig. 15, we can see a single test in more detail. Since the error bars are equal to the

standard deviation, the 30 minute sample is almost equal to the 45 minute sample. This is

confirmed by a statistical analysis by SAS in Table 3: since the TSS values from 30-90 minutes

have the same letter, they are statistically the same.

Now that the steady-state time was known, the testing of the range of alum doses on

TSS and TP removal could start. This testing took place over the course of several days, and

produced the following result.

 28

40

35

30

25
TSS (mg/L)

20
Influent
15
Effluent
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
Alum dose
Fig. 16. TSS vs. alum dose, pilot DAF unit

60%

50%
TSS percent removal

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
0 mg/L 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
Alum dose

Fig. 17. TSS percent removal vs. alum dose, pilot DAF unit

In order to tell which of these dosing rates produced a statistically different result, the

influent and effluent TSS values need to be compared.

 29
40
35
30

TSS (mg/L) 25
20
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
Alum dose
Fig. 18. TSS in pilot DAF unit influent

Table 4
Statistical groupings for TSS in pilot DAF unit influent

Alum dose Tukey

(mg/L) Grouping
0 B
10 B
20 B
30 B
40 B
50 B
60 B
70 A
80 A B
90 A B
100 A B

Fig. 18 contains the comparison of the TSS in the influent. All of the values are

statistically the same, except for the run that used a dose of 70 mg/L (see Table 4). This dose,

however, had the same TSS dose as the 80-100 mg/L runs, so those four runs can be compared
 30
40
35
30
25
TSS (mg/L)
20
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
Alum dose

Fig. 19. TSS in pilot DAF unit effluent

Table 5
Statistical groupings for TSS in pilot DAF unit effluent
Alum dose Tukey
(mg/L) Grouping
0 B
10 A
20 B
30 C
40 C
50 C
60 C
70 C
80 C
90 C
100 C

together. Additionally, 70 mg/L is much higher than the optimum alum dose should be; after

talking to other engineers in the field, the researcher determined that the optimum value

should be below 50 mg/L. Because of this, the uniqueness of the 70 mg/L test was ignored.
 31
Fig. 19 shows the TSS concentration is the pilot DAF unit effluent, and we can see a

statistically significant difference. There is no difference between 30 mg/L and any other higher

dose. This is our optimum dose, at least with respect to TSS removal.

According to the TSS removal data, with any dose higher than 30 mg/L, no more algae is

harvested. Approximately the same results can be seen with the total phosphorus removal

data.

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
TP (mg/L)

1.0
0.8
Influent
0.6
0.4 Effluent
0.2
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
Alum dose

Fig. 20. TP vs. alum dose, pilot DAF unit

100%
90%
80%
TP percent removal

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
Alum dose

Fig. 21. TP percent removal vs. alum dose, pilot DAF unit
 32
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2

TP (mg/L) 1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
Alum dose

Fig. 22. TP in pilot DAF unit influent

Table 6
Statistical groupings for TP in pilot DAF unit influent
Alum dose Tukey
(mg/L) Grouping
0 A
10 A
20 A
30 A
40 A
50 A
60 A
70 A
80 A
90 A
100 A

When the same statistical analysis is applied to the TP levels in the pilot DAF unit

influent, the levels are all equal (see Fig. 22 and Table 6). This allows comparison between the

TP levels in the effluent.

 33
1.4

1.2

1.0
TP (mg/L)
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
Alum dose
Fig. 23. TP in pilot DAF unit effluent

Table 7
Statistical groupings for TP in pilot DAF unit effluent
Alum dose
(mg/L) Tukey Grouping
0 A
10 A
20 A
30 B
40 C D
50 C D
60 D E
70 E
80 B C
90 D E
100 D E

The statistical situation in the effluent in the TP testing isnt quite as clear. The TP

concentration in the 0, 10, and 20 mg/L samples are all statistically the same, and the rest of the

doses are related in varying degrees (see Fig. 23 and Table 7). Either 30 or 40 mg/L is the

optimum alum dose for TP removal. Since 30 mg/L was the optimum dose for TSS removal, and
 34
due to the fact that the chemical dose should be limited if possible, 30 mg/L will be used as the

optimum dose for TP removal as well as TSS.

3.4 Conclusion

The alum doses from 30-100 mg/L are statistically similar. Referring back to Fig. 9 (the

schematic representation of coagulation), these doses have placed the pilot DAF unit effluent in

Zone 2 (where there is a stoichiometric relationship between alum and algae). This is where the

pilot DAF unit should operate, in order to minimize chemical usage.

The primary goal of the City of Logan is the removal of phosphorus, and it was

demonstrated that the pilot DAF unit is capable of doing this. This unit was able to remove 50-

60% of the total phosphorus present, from 1-1.2 mg/L to 0.5-0.7 mg/L. This is low enough to

meet the regulations set by the state of Utah.

This phase of testing has also allowed the researcher to become both familiar with the

pilot DAF unit and collecting important data. Knowing that the optimum alum dose is 30 mg/L

will allow the DAF to run most efficiently and cost effectively in the future. This will also allow

the next phase of the project to begin. This next phase was planned to begin in January 2011,

but that was before the pilot DAF unit started to function poorly. These problems are discussed

in the following chapter.

 35
CHAPTER 4

PILOT DAF UNIT: A TROUBLESHOOTING GUIDE

4.1 Introduction

As was stated earlier, the pilot DAF unit was unable to remove sufficient amount of

algae from the months of January to May 2011. This led the author to utilize a bench-scale jar

test unit (discussed in the next chapter) for most of the important data collection for this

project. However, this time troubleshooting the pilot DAF unit has provided a list of variables

that researchers can reference when troubleshooting a DAF system.

4.2 Materials and Methods

After the pilot DAF unit stopped working after in January 2011, a wide range of variables

were changed in order to isolate the problem. The operational conditions can be found listed in

the Results and Discussion section.

4.3 Results and Discussion

The following is a list of tests performed on the pilot DAF unit. This list can serve as a

starting point for troubleshooting a similar DAF unit.

As a more concise summary, Table 9 is a checklist of variables to use while

troubleshooting.
 36
Table 8
List of attempts to fix pilot DAF unit
Attempted repair Result
Installed a static mixer just prior to the
Influent flow rate dropped from 67 gpm
alum dosing line, in order to provide a to 51 gpm, but no improvement in DAF
better flash mix of the alum. efficiency was observed.
When the recycle rate is decreased to
the desired amount (~13 gpm),
unsaturated air escapes the saturation
tank. While working with WesTech on
this problem, it was revealed that the
compressor was vastly oversized for
Switched from the air injection pump this application, and the saturation tank
to the air compressor for the dissolved was an experimental design that was
air source. not fully tested.

The solid precipitate seen in the

bottom of the tank is an aluminum
A white substance was seen in the precipitate. There is no way to get it
bottom of the alum tank. Sent sample back in solution. The chemical supplier
of liquid alum stock to chemical said that the alum was 7.7% wt/wt
supplier to test its concentration. Al 2O3, and the stock should be 8.2-8.3%.
Checked the alum pump for consistent
flow rate over time. No change was observed.
Pulled sample from pilot DAF unit after
flocculation tank, check if flocculation Many flocs formed in the sample
was occurring. container, and rapidly settled.
Kept the alum dose consistent while
lowering the rate the air was entering No algae removed; for some reason, a
the air injection pump. negative removal rate was observed.

Removed static mixer, and moved alum

line back to original dosing location. No improvement.
TSS removal is still way too low (only
removing 25% of what it should be),
but the pilot DAF unit is removing
Doubled the recycle rate (from 13 gpm almost exactly the right amount of total
to 23 gpm). P.
They fixed an airlock in the alum line,
but said that the rest of the pilot DAF
unit looked like it was operating fine.
They decided that there must be
Visited with several engineers from something wrong with the alum
WesTech at the Logan Lagoons site. solution.
 37
Table 9
DAF troubleshooting checklist
Category Parameters to check
Have the coagulants/flocculants
been exposed to extremes in
Chemical temperatures?
Have the concentrations of the
cogaulants/flocculants been
checked by an analytical lab?
Are the dosing calculations
correct?
Is the dosing pump/delievery
system working properly?
Is there proper mixing at the
coagulant dosing location?
Is enough air entering the recycle
Physical system?
Is the recycle rate high enough?
Is the saturation tank pressure
high enough?
Is there proper saturation occuring
in the flotation tank (via visual
inspection)?
Is there unsaturated air entering
the flotation tank?
Has the unit been completely
drained and cleaned?
Have the hoses and piping been
thouroughly cleaned or replaced?

4.4 Conclusion

Even though the pilot DAF unit was unable to be fixed during a critical phase of this

research, the researcher feels much more comfortable troubleshooting and fixing this piece of

equipment. More importantly, a list of parameters was created that should be checked when a

DAF system is not performing optimally.

 38
CHAPTER 5

JAR TEST UNIT

5.1 Introduction

A jar test unit is a standard apparatus that allows wastewater engineers and scientists to

test different chemical dosing rates for improving water quality. The jar test unit purchased by

the Biological Engineering Department at Utah State University has the additional ability to

inject air-saturated water, accurately mimicking a DAF system.

Fig. 24. Jar test unit in operation

Fig. 24 shows the jar test unit used in this experimental work. It is manufactured by EC

Engineering in Alberta, Canada, and uses six 1-L square jars for the different chemical dosing

levels. This many jars allow many different dosing rates to be tested simultaneously. The white

backdrop behind and lights underneath the jars allows visual comparison of water quality

improvement. (A fan in the base of the unit ensures that there is only a minimal amount of heat

transferred to the jars via the lights).

 39
In Fig. 24, the experiment is taking place. The chemicals have been added to each jar,

and the mixers are turning at 60 rpm. (The mixer speed is adjustable with the knobs on the

right). In front of the jars, resting on the table is the air injection module. One injector goes into

each jar, and this replicates the recycle system on the pilot DAF unit. (One difference; the jar

test unit injects DI water, instead of wastewater.) The amount of recycle can also be adjusted;

all six jars at full recycle amounts to a 12% recycle rate.

The goal of the experimentation with this unit was to duplicate the removal rate data

obtained with the pilot DAF unit.

5.2 Materials and Methods

5.2.1 Jar Test Operation

Before starting this experiment, seven 500-mL plastic bottles were cleaned and acid

washed (the seventh bottle is for the influent sample). Also, a 5000 mg/L alum stock solution

was created by diluting the new stock solution of alum (purchased while troubleshooting the

pilot DAF unit).

The remaining six 1-L jars were filled as close to the same time as possible from the

Logan Lagoons effluent, using a 1-L volumetric flask. After all the jars were filled, they were

placed in the base of the jar test unit, with the mixer module attached. While the mixers were

keeping the samples suspended, six 10-mL disposable syringes were filled with the required

amount of the 5000 mg/L alum dilution.

At the start of the test, the mixers were turned up to their maximum speed (in this case,

320 rpm). The required amount of alum was injected into the jars as quickly as possible, and the

stopwatch started. After 10 seconds elapsed, the mixers were turned down to 60 rpm. The

mixers spun at this speed for 15 minutes.

 40
While the mixers were running, several other tasks were completed. First, each of the

clean bottles was labeled with a jar number using masking tape. Second, the saturation tank

was filled up to the second weld on the inside of the tank with DI water. After the tank was

filled, the lid was replaced and the tank was pressurized to 60 psi. After that pressure is

reached, the tank was shaken for 10-15 seconds. This ensured that the water was properly

saturated with air. Then, the saturation tank was connected to the air injection module.

When the stopwatch read 14 minutes, 45 seconds, the injection module was placed on

the jar test unit. For this test, knobs for each injector were turned to 10, the setting for

maximum air injection. The unit was also be set to common start.

At 15 minutes and 10 seconds, the mixer was turned off and any one of the injector

buttons on the unit was pressed. All six injectors injected air, providing approximately a 12%

recycle. Once the injectors finished, the air injection module was immediately pulled out and

the jar test unit was allowed to rest undisturbed for 5 minutes while the bubbles rise. Once this

time elapsed, a 500-mL bottle was placed under each sampling port on each jar in order to

collect a 400 mL sample. This provided sufficient volume for triplicate TSS and TP samples.

This procedure was completed for the entire range of alum dosing rates, from 0 to 100

mg/L, with increments every 10 mg/L. Also, the alum doses were randomized among the six jars

until three replicates of each alum dose were obtained.

5.2.2 Scaled-down total phosphorus testing

For this series of jar test unit runs, a scaled-down phosphorus test was used to save

both time and money. The following is a procedure developed by Erick Griffiths, a former

graduate student at USU. It uses the same Hach Test N Tube Total Phosphorus test kits, but

utilizes the supplied chemicals in a much smaller volume, testing 5-6 samples out of 1 tube.
 41
Since this method only reads the absorbance, and is not using the Hach program to

automatically calculate the P concentration, a standard curve must be made relating absorbance

to P concentration.

1. Mix 1 potassium persulfate pillow in 1 acid vial.

2. In a clean digestion vial, mix 200 l of the acid and potassium persulfate mixture (from

step 1) with 500 l sample.

3. Cook vials in heating block for 30 minutes at 150 oC.

4. Cool vials to room temperature.

5. Add 200 l NaOH to each vial.

6. Mix 1 PhosVer 3 pillow in 1 mL DI H2O.

7. Add 100 l of PhosVer 3 mixture to each vial.

8. Briefly mix using vortex.

9. Allow reaction to proceed for at least 2 minutes, but no longer than 8 minutes.

10. Pour each sample into cuvette for absorbance measurement at 890 nm.

5.2.3 Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis for this section was completed in SAS, a software package commonly

used in scientific applications. A slightly different model was used in this portion of the

research. Since the researcher was essentially measuring triplicates of triplicates (each alum

dose was used for three different jars, and each jar was measured in triplicate), a nested

experimental design was used, where each group of three measurements was nested within

each replicate of each alum dose.

Note that originally, this was not the method of analysis planned. The original plan was

to use the generalized linear model, as was used previously. This would allow one to easily
 42
measure the percent removal by averaging the triplicates for both the influent and effluent

samples. However, the nested design eliminated the ability to use the percent removal values in

the model, since this calculation would cause a loss in resolution. Therefore, the effluent

measurements were used in the SAS program, and used to compare the percent removal values.

When data are presented, the same letter on two data points indicates that the two

points are considered statistically equal, given the assumption described above. Additionally,

when present, error bars are equal to the standard deviation. Since in all previous experiments

our assumption of independent and identically distributed error terms was correct, it was

assumed that this was the case with this phase of research.

5.3 Results and Discussion

Before any experiments could be completed, a standard curve was created, comparing

TP concentration to absorbance. Hach phosphorus standards were diluted and tested using the

scaled-down protocol. The standard curve in Fig. 25 has an R2 value of 0.993. All of the samples

should be in the range of the standard curve (0-5 mg/L), allowing interpolation, not

extrapolation. This linear regression was used to calculate the TP concentration for all of the

tests that use this protocol.

1.6
y = 0.3079x + 0.0023
1.4
R = 0.993
1.2
Absorbance

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Concentration (mg P/L)

Fig. 25. Standard curve for absorbance vs. TP concentration relationship (scaled-down TP test)
 43
Using this standard curve, the following data were generated for TSS removal and TP

removal. As before, error bars indicate the standard deviation.

100%
90%
80%
TSS percent removal

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Alum dose (mg/L)

Fig. 26. TSS percent removal vs. alum dose, jar test unit

100%
90%
80%
TP percent removal

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Alum dose (mg/L)

Fig. 27. TP percent removal vs. alum dose, jar test unit
 44
These removal rates are higher than was obtained on the pilot DAF unit. The old alum

stock solution must have been substandard even when the pilot DAF was working.

An analysis was performed on the jar test unit data using SAS, a statistical program, in

order to determine which of the alum doses produce the same result.

100%
90%
80%
TSS percent removal

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Alum dose (mg/L)

Fig. 28. Statistical analysis of TSS removal data, jar test unit

Table 10
Statistical groupings for TSS removal in jar test unit
Alum dose
(mg/L) Tukey Grouping
0
10 A
20 A B C
30 B C D
40 B D E
50 B D E F
60 F G
70 F G H
80 B D E F G H I
90 D E F G H I
100 B
 45
100%
90%
80%

TP percent removal
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Alum dose (mg/L)

Fig. 29. Statistical analysis of TP removal data, jar test unit

Table 11
Statistical groupings for TP removal in jar test unit
Alum dose
(mg/L) Tukey Grouping
0
10
20
30 A B
40 A B C
50 A C D
60 A C D E
70 A C D E F
80 A C D E F G
90 A C D E F G
100 A

On Fig. 28 and in Table 10, some TSS doses can be observed to be statistically similar.

Statistical similarity is seen with the 10 and 20 mg/L doses. Additionally, 20-30, 20-50, and many

of the higher doses are also statistically the same. In this case, 30 mg/L alum performs just as

well as the higher doses. Twenty mg/L performs the same as 30 mg/L, but not as well as 40

mg/L. Because of this, with TSS removal, 30 mg/L is the optimum dose.
 46
The situation is similar when observing TP removal. Statistical similarities can be

observed in the range 40-90 mg/L, and 30 and 40 mg/L are also the same. Since the goal is to

use as little alum as possible, 30 mg/L also works as the optimum alum dose for TP removal.

5.4 Conclusion

Note that on Fig. 28, the percent removal of TSS actually decreases as the alum dose

increases. It is not clear why this is occurring. According to the solubility diagram of aluminum

(Fig. 30), for the range of alum doses being used, the alum should be sufficiently high to exceed

the solubility constants. (A high pH, greater than 11-11.5, would be required for the system to

leave this range). This means that the aluminum ions are free to adsorb to the algal particles,

and there should be no reason why the removal efficiency should decrease (Faust and Aly,

1998).

Fig. 30. Solubility of aluminum at equilibrium with (a) gibbsite and (b) amorphous Al(OH) 3 (Faust
and Aly, 1998)

One possible cause of this decrease in removal efficiency involves the aluminum itself.

If there is enough aluminum present, the negatively-charged particles may have their charge
 47
changed from a negative charge to a positive one, instead of just neutralizing the charge. In this

case, the algae particles would still repel each other, causing a decrease in removal efficiency.

After completing this part of the project, a procedure was developed for the jar test unit

which will allow it to be operated quickly when more testing needs to be completed.

Additionally, the researcher became proficient in the scaled-down TP method, which will enable

the phosphorus testing to happen more quickly and at a fifth of the cost. This procedure will

also be given to the City of Logan, because this could decrease testing expenses significantly.

Finally, the optimum dose for TSS and phosphorus removal was determined: 30 mg/L.
 48
CHAPTER 6

THE EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ON ALUM AND POLYMER DOSING RATES

6.1 Introduction

The overall goal of this research project was to determine if there was an effect of

environmental conditions on the algal harvesting efficiency of a given chemical dose. Previous

research has shown that EPS production, a possible substitute for a chemical flocculant, can be

higher in periods of higher irradiance and temperature. To determine if this is the case, the

following experiment was designed.

The jar test unit was operated to evaluate treatment at different times throughout the

day. The alum dose was kept constant while the polymer dose was varied from 0 mg/L to 1

mg/L. Irradiance, temperature, and pH were also monitored throughout the day. The removal

efficiencies of the different polymer doses were then related to these environmental conditions

in order to try to find a statistically significant relationship. The goal was to find a set of

environmental conditions that would allow chemical dosing rates to be lowered.

The polymer used in this experiment is called T-Floc AE-204, and is an anionic polymer

manufactured by Thatcher Chemical in Salt Lake City, UT. It was recommended by WesTech

Engineering for use with their pilot-scale DAF unit.

6.2 Materials and Methods

This experiment provided a number of challenges. First, four different polymer doses

were needed for each time point (0, 0.3, 0.6, and 1 mg/L). Since each dose needed to be done

in triplicate, this required a total of twelve jars. This meant the jar test unit needs to be

operated twice per time point.

 49
In order to collect enough sample for the jar test unit to be run twice, a five gallon

bucket was filled with sample at the required time. The first set of jars was filled from the

bucket, and then the bucket was sealed. It was then lowered by a rope until it was submerged

as much as possible in the Logan Lagoons. This allowed the sample in the bucket to be

temperature regulated. Also, since the bucket was sealed, the darkness limited the amount of

algae growth and other microbial activity. The turnaround time for the jar test unit was an hour,

so this limited the time the sample had to sit in the bucket. Additionally, in order to minimize

the effect of the sample staying in the bucket, all twelve samples (4 treatments, in triplicate)

were randomly assigned to jars across both runs.

Fig. 31. Filling jars in preparation for jar test unit operation
 50

Fig. 32. Sampling bucket in the Logan Lagoons

After this method was finalized, the testing procedure was developed. Data was

collected throughout the course of a day. The time points used were 8 am, 9 am, 11 am, 12 pm,

and 2 pm. However, this is too much to do in one day, so these data points were collected on

multiple days. Because of the time required for testing, and security concerns with having

students working at the Logan Lagoons after 5 pm, the 2 pm sampling time was the latest

possible data point.

For the actual jar test unit operation, the same procedure was used as earlier (see

chapter 5 JAR TEST UNIT). After a run was completed, the jar test unit was immediately washed

with phosphorus-free soap and rinsed with DI water. If this was the first jar test unit run for a

time point, the jar test unit was started again as soon as possible.
 51
While the researcher was running the jar test unit, two undergraduate students were

doing the lab tests. TSS tests were completed, put in the oven, dried, and weighed, according to

Standard Methods. The scaled-down TP test was completed. (Both of these tests were

completed in triplicate.) Additionally, since only a limited number of 500 mL plastic bottles were

available, these bottles were washed with soap and acid-soaked for 1 hour.

While the testing was occurring, several monitoring equipment was operational. A Hach

pH probe was submerged in the Logan Lagoons effluent, monitoring pH and temperature and

recording data every 15 minutes. Additionally, a sensor was collecting the photosynthetic

photon flux density (PPFD) and irradiance every minute.

6.2.1 Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis for this section was completed in SAS, a software package commonly

used in scientific applications. A slightly different model was used in this portion of the

research. Since the researcher was essentially measuring triplicates of triplicates (each

polymer dose was used on three different jars, and each jar was measured in triplicate), a

nested experimental design was used, where each group of three measurements was nested

within each replicate of each alum dose.

Note: originally, this was not the method of analysis planned. The original plan was to

use the generalized linear model, as was used previously. This would allow one to easily

measure the percent removal by averaging the triplicates for both the influent and effluent

samples. However, the nested design eliminated the ability to use the percent removal values in

the model, since this calculation would cause a loss in resolution. Therefore, the effluent

measurements were used in the SAS program, and used to compare the percent removal values.
 52
When data is presented, the same letter on two data points indicates that the two

points are considered statistically equal, given the assumption described above. Additionally,

when present, error bars are equal to the standard deviation. Since in all previous experiments

our assumption of independent and identically distributed error terms was correct, it was

assumed that this was the case with this phase of research.

6.3 Results and Discussion

The following two figures (Fig. 33 and Fig. 34) illustrate the overall removal efficiency of

the jar test unit throughout the course of a day. The first set of samples was taken on July 21,

2011, at 8:20 am, 11:02 am, and 2:18 pm. The second day of sampling occurred on July 26,

2011, at 9:03 am and 12:01 pm.

In order to observe possible differences between treatment levels, this data will be

divided into logical groups. First are the removal rates of total phosphorus (TP).

90%

85%
Alum only
TSS percent removal

80%
Alum + 0.3 mg
polymer
75%
Alum + 0.6 mg
polymer
70%
Alum + 1.0 mg
polymer
65%

60%
7:12 AM 9:36 AM 12:00 PM 2:24 PM 4:48 PM
Fig. 33. TSS percent removal rates (July 21 and 26, 2011)
 53
90%

85%
TP percent removal Alum only
80%
Alum + 0.3 mg
75% polymer
Alum + 0.6 mg
70% polymer
Alum + 1.0 mg
65% polymer

60%
7:12 AM 9:36 AM 12:00 PM 2:24 PM 4:48 PM
Fig. 34. TP percent removal rates (July 21 and 26, 2011)

90%

85%
TP percent removal

80%

75%

70%

65%

60%
Alum only Alum + 0.3 mg Alum + 0.6 mg Alum + 1.0 mg
polymer polymer polymer
Fig. 35. TP percent removal (July 21, 2011, 8:20 am)

Table 12
Statistical groupings for TP removal, 8:20 AM
Polymer dose Tukey
(mg/L) Grouping
0 A
0.3 A B
0.6 B
1.0 A B
 54
90%

85%

TP percent removal 80%

75%

70%

65%

60%
Alum only Alum + 0.3 mg Alum + 0.6 mg Alum + 1.0 mg
polymer polymer polymer
Fig. 36. TP percent removal (July 26, 2011, 9:03 am)

Table 13
Statistical groupings for TP removal, 9:03 AM
Polymer dose Tukey
(mg/L) Grouping
0 A
0.3 A B
0.6
1.0 A B

90%

85%
TP percent removal

80%

75%

70%

65%

60%
Alum only Alum + 0.3 mg Alum + 0.6 mg Alum + 1.0 mg
polymer polymer polymer
Fig. 37. TP percent removal (July 21, 2011, 11:02 am)
 55
Table 14
Statistical groupings for TP removal, 11:02 AM
Polymer dose Tukey
(mg/L) Grouping
0 A
0.3 A B
0.6 A B C
1.0 A B C

90%

85%
TP percent removal

80%

75%

70%

65%

60%
Alum only Alum + 0.3 mg Alum + 0.6 mg Alum + 1.0 mg
polymer polymer polymer

Fig. 38. TP percent removal (July 26, 2011, 12:01 pm)

Table 15
Statistical groupings for TP removal, 12:01 PM
Polymer dose Tukey
(mg/L) Grouping
0 A
0.3 A B
0.6 A B C
1.0 A B C

Upon looking at the TP removal data, very little difference in percent removal is seen

throughout the day. In most cases, the lowest polymer dose produces statistically equal results

as the three higher polymer doses. Even though the higher doses are often related to each

other in various ways, the lowest dose is statistically equal to all of the rest.

When TSS percent removal is observed, the results are more interesting.
 56
90%

85%

TP percent removal
80%

75%

70%

65%

60%
Alum only Alum + 0.3 mg Alum + 0.6 mg Alum + 1.0 mg
polymer polymer polymer

Fig. 39. TP percent removal (July 21, 2011 2:18 pm)

Table 16
Statistical groupings for TP removal, 2:18 PM
Polymer dose Tukey
(mg/L) Grouping
0 A
0.3 A B
0.6 A B
1.0 B

90%

85%
TSS percent removal

80%

75%

70%

65%

60%
Alum only Alum + 0.3 mg Alum + 0.6 mg Alum + 1.0 mg
polymer polymer polymer

Fig. 40. TSS percent removal (July 21, 2011 8:20 am)
 57
Table 17
Statistical groupings for TSS removal, 8:20 AM
Polymer dose Tukey
(mg/L) Grouping
0 A
0.3 A B
0.6 B C
1.0 C

90%

85%
TSS percent removal

80%

75%

70%

65%

60%
Alum only Alum + 0.3 mg Alum + 0.6 mg Alum + 1.0 mg
polymer polymer polymer

Fig. 41. TSS percent removal (July 26, 2011, 9:03 am)

Table 18
Statistical groupings for TSS removal, 9:03 AM
Polymer dose Tukey
(mg/L) Grouping
0 A
0.3 A B
0.6 A B C
1.0 A C
 58
90%

85%

TSS percent removal 80%

75%

70%

65%

60%
Alum only Alum + 0.3 mg Alum + 0.6 mg Alum + 1.0 mg
polymer polymer polymer
Fig. 42. TSS percent removal (July 21, 2011, 11:02 am)

Table 19
Statistical groupings for TSS removal, 11:02 AM
Polymer dose Tukey
(mg/L) Grouping
0 A
0.3 A B
0.6 A B C
1.0 A B C

90%

85%
TSS percent removal

80%

75%

70%

65%

60%
Alum only Alum + 0.3 mg Alum + 0.6 mg Alum + 1.0 mg
polymer polymer polymer
Fig. 43. TSS percent removal (July 26, 2011, 12:01 pm)
 59

Table 20
Statistical groupings for TSS removal, 12:01 PM
Polymer dose Tukey
(mg/L) Grouping
0 A
0.3 A B
0.6 A B C
1.0 A B C

90%

85%
TSS percent removal

80%

75%

70%

65%

60%
Alum only Alum + 0.3 mg Alum + 0.6 mg Alum + 1.0 mg
polymer polymer polymer
Fig. 44. TSS percent removal (July 21, 2011, 2:18 pm)

Table 21
Statistical groupings for TSS removal, 2:18 PM
Polymer dose Tukey
(mg/L) Grouping
0 A
0.3 A B
0.6 A B C
1.0 A B C

According to the data that were collected, adding polymer does not increase TSS

removal efficiency. In four of the five time points, all four polymer doses produced a statistically

identical result. In the fifth time point, the two larger polymer doses decreased the percent
 60
removal by a significant percentage. This increased dose may have reversed the charge on the

particles, lowering the percent removal.

In four of the five tests, the mean for the 0.3 mg/L polymer dose was either equal to or

slightly higher than the 30 mg/L alum only treatment, but according to the statistical analysis,

they are equal. Further testing to decrease the standard deviation might yield a statistically

significant difference, but from this data, no advantage can be seen to using any amount of

polymer. Because the polymer only adds cost, the recommended treatment is 30 mg/L alum

only.

Even though there was no statistical reason to use the polymer to increase jar test unit

efficiency, there was a visual difference seen between the different treatments. The following

photographs were taken at the very end of the 15 minute slow mix period, and before the air

injection. They show a decrease in the number of flocs, and an increase in the size of the flocs,

as the polymer dose increases from 0.3 to 1.0 mg/L.

Fig. 45. Algal flocculation in jar test unit; 30 mg/L alum only (left) and 30 mg/L alum with 0.3
mg/L polymer (right)
 61

Fig. 46. Algal flocculation in jar test unit; 30 mg/L alum with 0.6 mg/L polymer (left) and 30 mg/L
alum with 1.0 mg/L polymer (right)

A difference between jars can also be seen once the air is injected into the system. In

Fig. 47 below, two different treatments are compared. This photograph was taken after the 15

minute slow mix period, after the air insertion, and just prior to sampling. The left jar only

received 30 mg/L alum as its treatment, while the right jar received 30 mg/L alum and 1.0 mg/L

polymer. While it is difficult to see in this picture, the left jar (alum only) has a noticeable green

color to the liquid, while the right jar (alum and polymer) looks very clear. No color can be seen

in the liquid. This difference can be seen with any jar that received the polymer treatment.

Another difference is the quality of the float. In the left jar, the algae formed a solid,

homogeneous float. This is the type of float that is easily removed by the pilot DAF unit, even

though the individual flocs are small. Conversely, in the right jar, much larger flocs were

formed. These flocs did not form the solid float, and some of the flocs were even too large to

float.
 62

Fig. 47. Float comparison in jar test unit; 30 mg/L alum only (left) and 30 mg/L alum and 1.0
mg/L polymer (right)

Floc behavior is only one way that the jar test unit may operate fundamentally

differently than the pilot DAF unit. First, it was assumed that all of the flocs in the jar test unit

would have been removed in the pilot DAF unit. The pilot DAF unit has a scraper operating on a

conveyor belt, and not all of the algae float is removed. Some escapes out of the effluent.

Second, the jar test unit samples were taken from the sampling port on the jars, approximately

one third of the way up the jar. It was assumed that this is the effluent of the jar test unit

system, even though the jar test unit does not have a true effluent because of its batch test

nature.

It is possible to compare this optimum dose (30 mg/L alum only) to the environmental

conditions in place at the Logan Lagoons. First is the removal rate of this treatment, alongside

the air temperature for one day of testing.

 63

100 100%
90 90%
80 80%

TSS percent removal

Air temperature (oF) 70 70%
60 60%
50 50%
40 40%
Air temperature
30 30%
20 TSS percent 20%
removal
10 10%
0 0%
7/21/2011 0:57 7/21/2011 7:40 7/21/2011 14:24 7/21/2011 21:07

Fig. 48. TSS percent removal with 30mg/L alum vs. air temperature

Next is the sunlight data collected from the data logger on site at the Logan Lagoons.

Fig. 49 shows both the PPFD (photosynthetic photon flux density) and irradiance (watts per

square meter). These units look at the sunlight differently; PPFD has units of moles of

photons/m2/sec, while irradiance is measured in watts/m2. Since the Campbell Scientific data

station records sunlight intensity in irradiance, this unit will be the primary unit used.

2500 2500
PPFD (moles photons/m2/sec)

2000 2000

PPFD
Irradiance (W/m2)

1500 1500
Irradiance

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
7/20/11 12:00 7/21/11 0:00 7/21/11 12:00 7/22/11 0:00 7/22/11 12:00
Fig. 49. Light intensity on July 21, 2011
 64
2000 100%
1800 90%
1600 Irradiance 80%
1400 (W/m^2) 70%

TSS percent removal

Irradiance (W/m2)
TSS percent
1200 removal 60%
1000 50%
800 40%
600 30%
400 20%
200 10%
0 0%
7/20/11 12:00 7/21/11 0:00 7/21/11 12:00 7/22/11 0:00 7/22/11 12:00
Fig. 50. TSS percent removal with 30 mg/L vs. irradiance

Finally, the effect that pH has on the TSS removal efficiency can be observed. As can be

seen below in Fig. 51, there is very little change throughout the day from 8:20 am to 2:18 pm.

The pH probe was not operating correctly the day of testing, but previous days of testing

also show little change over a 24 hour period.

100% 8
90% 7.9
80% 7.8
TSS percent removal

70% 7.7
TSS percent
60% 7.6
removal
pH

50% 7.5
pH
40% 7.4
30% 7.3
20% 7.2
10% 7.1
0% 7
12:00 AM 2:24 AM 4:48 AM 7:12 AM 9:36 AM 12:00 PM 2:24 PM 4:48 PM
Fig. 51. TSS percent removal with 30 mg/L vs. pH
 65
8.2

8.15
pH

8.1

8.05

8
7/4/2011 [Link] 7/4/2011 [Link] 7/5/2011 [Link]
Fig. 52. pH in Logan Lagoons effluent (July 4, 2011)

6.4 Conclusion

After examining the TSS and TP removal efficiencies of several different treatments

several times over the course of a day, several facts were determined. First, the amount of

polymer added (0.3, 0.6, or 1 mg/L) does not increase the amount of TP removed from the

wastewater. This is true across all five time points studied (8:20 am, 9:03 am, 11:02 am, 12:01

pm, and 2:38 pm).

Second, adding polymer does not increase TSS removal efficiency. It actually will

decrease the TSS removal efficiency by a statistically significant amount at a concentration

exceeding 0.3 mg/L. The 30 mg/L alum and 0.3 mg/L polymer treatment was always very

close to the 30 mg/L treatment - they were statistically identical. Further replication could

produce a noticeable difference between these two points, but this is unknown at this time.

It appears that the algae growing in the Logan Lagoons in the summer do not require

additional polymer to increase the removal efficiency. This conclusion was reached during the

heat of the summer. On the testing day, air temperatures reached a high of 85 oF and had only
 66
o
reached a low of 51.7 F the night before. The irradiance had reached a peak of approximately

1100 W/m2, with a relatively constant pH of 8.1. Different values of temperature, irradiance,

and pH would almost certainly change this conclusion.

Advances in our understanding and control of bioflocculation are required before the

Logan wastewater treatment plant will be able to avoid some dose of chemical coagulant. The

EPS might provide the finishing step that the synthetic polymer is currently providing. This

also makes the most sense from an economic standpoint; alum is relatively cheap, but the

polymer is orders of magnitude more expensive. A large cost benefit could be achieved if the

polymer dose can be lessened even by a small percentage, especially when a full-scale DAF unit

is installed at the Logan Lagoons.

 67
CHAPTER 7

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Introduction

The goal of this project was to provide the City of Logan with the most economical and

environmentally friendly method of meeting state UDEQ requirements on phosphorus

discharge. The City is committed to this goal; their desire to use a DAF system to collect the

algae, meeting regulations and harvesting a valuable source of biomass, shows their

commitment. However, the City of Logan requires an economic analysis of a DAF system. One

of the primary costs for this technology is the chemical cost. The other is the electrical cost,

since DAF technology is known to have a high energy requirement. Because of the high O&M

costs for a DAF system, this theoretical setup will be compared to that of one based on a series

of clarifiers.

7.2 Results and Discussion

It was determined previously that the optimum chemical dosing for Logan Lagoons

effluent would be 30 mg/L alum. In order to get a more complete picture of how the chemical

cost impacts the final cost of the harvested biomass, further testing was completed on the pilot

DAF unit.

While the pilot DAF unit was operating at optimal conditions (31.5 mg/L alum dose, 51

gpm influent rate, 20 gpm recycle, and with a pressure of 70 psi in the recycle system), several

tests were completed. These include TSS removal, TP removal, and a volatile solids (VS)

measurement on the algae float. The VS measurement will demonstrate the amount of the

collected biomass that is actually algae, not inert substances like dirt, sand, and aluminum
 68
sulfate. This will demonstrate how much algae is actually available for biogas or biodiesel

production.

Below in Table 22 is a comparison of the chemical costs for the pilot DAF unit at the

Logan Lagoons and a proposed full-scale DAF unit. Assuming the same dosage rates for the full-

scale unit, running at a flow rate of 15 MGD (million gallons per day), it would cost $1,118.41 in

alum stock solution to run for a 24 hour period. This calculation assumes the purchase of the

aluminum sulfate in bulk quantities (at least 48,000 lbs) from Thatcher chemical. This quantity

of alum sells for $208/ton, which is equal to $0.1038/lb.

Table 22
Chemical costs for pilot and full-scale DAF unit
Daily
polymer cost
with 0.3
Alum dose Influent flow Daily alum mg/L dose Total cost
(mg/L) rate (gpm) cost ($/day) ($/day) ($/day)
Pilot-scale DAF
unit 31.5 51 $ 5.48 $ 1.24 $ 6.72
Full-scale DAF
unit 31.5 10,417 $ 1,118.41 $ 862.34 $ 1,980.75

It was noted previously that additional replication of this testing may reveal that the

alum dose along with 0.3 mg/L polymer may yield the best result. The T-Floc AE-204 polymer

costs $125 per 5 gallon bucket. This stock polymer is diluted down to a 1% dilution, but the cost

is still significant. Adding the polymer to the full-scale DAF unit would add another $862.34/day.

Since the VS, TSS, and TP were calculated with the operation of the pilot DAF unit, the

biomass production can be estimated, along with TP and TSS removal, and how much this

removal costs on a unit basis. On this test, 68% of the TSS and 65% of the TP was removed,

bringing the TSS and TP levels down to acceptable limits (<25 mg/L and <0.5 mg/L, respectively).
 69
Also, the cost was calculated for the removal of each mg/L of TSS and TP. To remove 1 mg/L of

TSS, it costs $0.25 worth of alum stock solution. To remove the same amount of TP loading,

$7.24 of alum stock is required. See Table 23 for more information.

Table 23
Performance and unit cost values for pilot DAF unit
Performance

TSS TSS TP TP VS VS
removal removal removal removal harvested harvested
(%) (mg/L) (%) (mg/L) (wt %) (kg/day)
68% 21.7 65% 0.757 0.7% 7.65
Unit cost
Cost per mg TP
Cost per kg algae removed Cost per mg TSS
harvested ($/kg) ($/(mg/L)) removed ($/(mg/L))
$ 2.15 $ 7.24 $ 0.25

These calculations also allowed the quantity of biomass created by the pilot DAF unit to

be determined. This unit was able to harvest biomass at a 0.7% by weight concentration, and

could collect 7.65 kg of dry algae in a 24-hour period. The cost of alum to harvest 1 kg of dry

algae is $2.15.

Table 24
Electrical costs on a full-scale DAF unit
Required Required Power usage
Influent flow Recycle flow pump size pump size per day
Technology rate (gpm) rate (gpm) (hp) kW/hp (kW) (kwh/day)
Recycle pumps 10417 1250 100 0.7457 74.57 1789.68
Power Actual power
Air flow Required Required usage per usage (Only
Recycle flow Air flow rate rate Required pump size pump day operates 40%)
rate (gpm) (gpm) gal/ft3 (cfm) flow (cfm) (hp) kW/hp size (kW) (kwh/day) (kwh/day)
Air compressors 1250 125 7.481 16.709 34.2 10 0.7457 7.457 178.968 71.5872

Daily
electrical use Daily electrical
(kwh) cost ($)
Total 1861.2672 $ 148.90
 70
The electrical cost of the DAF unit is also an important consideration. After consulting

with engineers at WesTech (David Romer, October 25, 2011), it was determined that the

increased electrical cost for a DAF unit (above that of a clarifier system) are from the recycle

pumps and the air compressors. All other electrical costs were assumed to be equal.

The data in Table 24 is based on a number of assumptions. First, that the recycle flow

rate is 12% of the influent flow rate, and the air flow rate is 10% of the recycle rate.

Additionally, the air compressors only run 40% of the time; a factor for this reduction was

included. In order to calculate the daily electrical cost, the high value for the range of

commercial electricity cost for Utah was used, as displayed on Rocky Mountain Powers website

($0.071 - 0.08/kWh). This results in an increased electrical load from a DAF unit to be 1,861

kWh/day, or $148.90/day.

In order to estimate the construction cost of a DAF unit, in comparison to a clarifier-

based system, Carollo Engineers was contacted on August 18, 2011. Dustin Hansen supplied

two recent proposals. The first quoted a 15 MGD clarifier system with a total estimated

construction cost at $8,778,700. The second detailed a 15 MGD DAF system for the Logan

Lagoons, with a final cost of $6,599,000. All of these costs are detailed below in Table 25.

Table 25
Cost comparison of full-scale DAF unit and full-scale clarifier
Price of VS
VS required to offset
Daily alum Electrical harvested Construction daily O&M cost
Technology cost cost Daily O&M (kg/day) cost ($/kg)
Pilot DAF unit $ 5.48 $ - 7.65 $ - $ -
Full-scale DAF
unit $ 1,118.41 $ 148.90 $ 1,267.31 1562.55 $ 6,599,000 $ 0.81
Clarifier $ - $ - $ - 0 $ 8,778,700 $ -
 71
Assuming that the amount of algae (volatile solids) will scale up from the pilot DAF unit

in a linear fashion, the full-scale DAF unit will produce 1,563 kg of algae per day. In order to

offset the additional daily cost of aluminum sulfate and electricity, this algae would have to be

worth $0.81/kg.

These cost assumptions, however, are only valid during the environmental conditions

when the tests were completed. It is assumed that the removal rates will not be as high when

the irradiance and temperature levels are lower.

The first variable to discuss is air temperature. For the jar test unit removal testing done

in July, air temperatures had reached into the 80s ( oF) during the day, and cooled off into the

low 50s (oF) at night. When considering the air temperature data collected from the Campbell

Scientific data logger in Fig. A-10, several months have roughly fit these conditions since October

2010. Late June 2011, July 2011, and late October 2010 match this temperature profile. August

or September 2010 data is not available, but since that data would come before the October

data, it is assumed that it would have a similar (or higher) temperature profile. This can lead us

to assume that in general, the removal rates obtained earlier would be similar between late

June and early October, at least when air temperature is concerned.

The next variable to look at is the irradiance. According to the irradiance levels

recorded at the Campbell Scientific data logger (Fig. A-11), the irradiance in July is very similar to

the levels seen in May and June. October 2010 had significantly lower irradiance levels, so it is

difficult to make assumptions about August and September. However, from experience, August

is as hot and sunny as July. This suggests that the removal rates from previously in this report

would be similar at least between May and August, at least with respect to the irradiance.

The final variable to consider is the pH. However, the seasonal variation in pH is small

when the standard deviations are considered (see Fig. A-8).

 72
7.3 Conclusion

Using an optimum treatment dose of 30 mg/L alum, the daily alum cost to treat all of

the Logan Lagoons effluent would be $1,118.41. The additional electricity need to run a DAF

unit instead of a clarifier would cost an additional $148.90 a day. This means that this additional

daily cost of $1,267.31 can be offset by the algae production if it is priced at $0.81/kg.

The testing done for this economic analysis was completed in July, one of the warmest,

sunniest months of the year in Logan, UT. This would be the best time for EPS production,

which was the primary focus of this thesis project. However, this means that any economic

conclusions reached here must only apply to this time period.

After looking at the irradiance and temperature levels for October 2010 through July

2011, these economic assumptions would be valid for the months of at least June through

August. They may also be correct for the months of May and September, but further testing

would be required to confirm this.

 73
CHAPTER 8

FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS

There are a number of areas where research is still needed. Even though the data

collected is representative of warm, summer months, this testing should be completed over the

course of the year. The Logan Lagoons effluent likely behaves differently under different

environmental conditions with the same alum and polymer dosing rates. Summer is when EPS

production is the highest; how well different dosing rates work in the winter should also be

observed. Additionally, the TSS is significantly higher in the winter months as compared to the

summer; a difference in algae concentration may require a different alum/polymer dose.

The pilot DAF unit should be operated with the conditions and the optimum dosing

rates that were found with the jar test unit. It is necessary to replicate what was found at a

small scale with the jar test unit; the pilot DAF unit should also be run with varying polymer

doses. No improvements in TSS or TP removal efficiencies were seen, but a visible difference in

floc size was observed. These larger, more stable flocs may make a bigger difference in the pilot

DAF unit than the jar test unit.

Also, testing to determine the environmental impacts on chemical dosing rates should

be completed on a batch culture of algae growing in a raceway. Autoflocculation has been

observed occurring in raceways at the Logan Lagoons; it would be very informative to see how

this could affect jar test unit operation. Ideally, the hourly testing would be done at different

points along the cultures life cycle. If testing throughout the day was done every three days, for

example, the effect of the age of the algal culture could also be taken into effect. It would be

advantageous to know if, for example, if an algal culture is allowed to age for 10 days, only half

of the chemical is required for proper DAF removal rates.

 74
Finally, research needs to be completed into the proper molar ratio of algae to alum.

The optimum alum dose found in this project of 30 mg/L depended on the range of algae seen in

the effluent of the Logan Lagoons (20-40 mg/L). Aluminum sulfate is able to coagulate the algae

because the alum is able to physically neutralize the negative charges of each individual algae

cell. If a raceway system were installed, in order to bring the algae concentration up to 300

mg/L, much more alum would be needed. Research into the optimum molar ratio of algae to

alum would need to be completed before a higher feedstock is run through the DAF unit.
 75
CHAPTER 9

CONCLUSIONS

As part of the first objective of this research, the optimum alum dose for TSS and TP

removal was found to be 30 mg/L, on both the pilot DAF unit and the jar test unit. It was

determined that the addition of the polymer T-Floc AE-204 did not increase the percent removal

of either TSS or TP. The percent removal actually decreased when the polymer was used,

indicating that the polymer was reversing the charge, not neutralizing it.

Data collected during the economic analysis of this project provided the molar ratios of

aluminum to TP and aluminum to TSS. During this testing, 21.7 mg/L TSS and 0.757 mg/L TP was

removed, while using a 31.5 mg/L alum dose. Using the assumption that the molar weight of

algae is 3,550 g/mole, the molar ratio of Al/TSS was found to be 30.1. The molar ratio of Al/TP

was found to be 7.5.

An additional objective was to determine if the algal species living in the Logan Lagoons

will flocculate without the addition of chemicals. Initial data obtained with the pilot DAF unit

demonstrated that even without alum or polymer addition, approximately 7% of the TSS was

able to be removed. No phosphorus was removed at the same time. The jar test unit, however,

was able to remove 24% of the TSS and 7% of the TP without using any chemical addition.

Even though the jar test unit was able to remove 24% of the TSS and 7% of the TP

without chemical addition, this is not enough to assume that we can run a full-scale DAF without

chemical addition.

The second objective of this research project was to determine if autoflocculation and

bioflocculation can improve DAF efficiency when chemical coagulants are used. While using a

constant, optimum alum dose (30 mg/L), and using varying amount of synthetic polymer, it was
 76
determined that adding the polymer either made the removal rates worse, or matched the alum

dose for removal efficiencies. This indicates that during warm, summer months, no synthetic

polymer is required to get the best TSS and TP removal efficiencies.

The final objective for this project was to conduct an economic analysis for DAF

operation with and without chemical addition. It was determined that some chemical was

required, and this 30 mg/L alum dose would have a chemical cost of $1,118.41/day. The

necessary electrical cost of the DAF unit would add an additional $148.90 to the daily cost. It

was determined that this treatment/pricing combination would be valid at least for the months

of June through August. If 0.3 mg/L polymer is needed during non-summer months, then

another $862.34 in polymer cost would need to be added per day.

 77
REFERENCES

Adelman, M.A., 1990. Mineral depletion, with special reference to petroleum. Rev. Econ. Stat.
72, 1-10.

Bare, W.F.R., Jones, N.B., Middlebrooks, E.J., 1975. Algae removal using dissolved air flotation. J.
Water Pollut. Control Fed. 47, 153-169.

Behzadi, S., Farid, M.M., 2007. Review: examining the use of different feedstock for the
production of biodiesel. Asia Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2, 480-486.

Benson, A., 2007. Sewage lagoons on way out? The Herald Journal.

Brandt, A.R., Farrell, A.E., 2007. Scraping the bottom of the barrel: greenhouse gas emission
consequences of a transition to low-quality and synthetic petroleum resources. Climatic
Change 84, 241-263.

Chisti, Y., 2007. Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnol. Adv. 25, 294-306.

Chisti, Y., 2008. Biodiesel from microalgae beats bioethanol. Trends Biotechnol. 26, 126-131.

Chung, Y., Choi, Y.C., Choi, Y.H., Kang, H.S., 2000. A demonstration scaling-up of the dissolved air
flotation. Water Res. 34, 817-824.

City of Logan, UT, 2008. City of Logan, Monthly Operation Report, Wastewater Treatment
Facility.

Decho, A., 1990. Microbial exopolymer secretions in ocean environments: their role(s) in food
webs and marine processes. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annual Review 28, 73-153.

DeLuchi, M.A., 1991. Emissions of greenhouse gases from the use of transportation fuels and
electricity.

Demirbas, A., 2009. Biofuels: Securing the Planets Future Energy Needs. Springer, London.

Dismukes, G.C., Carrieri, D., Bennette, N., Ananyev, G.M., Posewitz, M.C., 2008. Aquatic
phototrophs: efficient alternatives to land-based crops for biofuels. Curr. Opin.
Biotechnol. 19, 235-240.

Eaton, A., Clesceri, L., Rice, E., Greenberg, A., Franson, M., 2005a. 2540-D Total Suspended Solids
Dried at 103-105 C, in: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater:
Centennial ed. American Public Health Association, Washington.

Eaton, A., Clesceri, L., Rice, E., Greenberg, A., Franson, M., 2005b. 4500-P E. Phosphorus, in:
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater: Centennial ed.
 78
American Public Health Association, Washington.

Eaton, A., Clesceri, L., Rice, E., Greenberg, A., Franson, M., 2005c. 4500-N Nitrogen, in: Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater: Centennial ed. American Public
Health Association, Washington.

Eaton, A., Clesceri, L., Rice, E., Greenberg, A., Franson, M., 2005d. 2540-F Settleable Solids, in:
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater: Centennial ed.
American Public Health Association, Washington.

Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., Hawthorne, P., 2008. Land clearing and the biofuel
carbon debt. Science 319, 1235-1238.

Faust, S.D., Aly, O.M., 1998. Chemistry of Water Treatment, 2nd ed. Ann Arbor Press, Ann Arbor.

Goldman, J., Carpenter, E., 1974. A kinetic approach to the effect of temperature on algal
growth. Limnol. Oceanogr. 756-766.

Golueke, C.G., Oswald, W.J., 1965. Harvesting and processing sewage-grown planktonic algae. J.
Water Pollut. Control Fed. 37, 471-498.

Gregory, J., 2006. Particles in Water: Properties and Processes. CRC Press, Baca Racon, FL.

Griffiths, E., Viamajala, S., Thompson. R., Jones, J., Sims, R., Hamud, I., 2009. Evaluation of
biofuel potential through wastewater treatment using algae. Presented at the 31st
Symposium on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals, San Francisco, CA.

Harrison, R.G., Todd, P., Rudge, S.R., Petrides, D.P., 2003. Bioseparations Science and
Engineering. Oxford University Press, New York.

Hill, J., Nelson, E., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., Tiffany, D., 2006. Environmental, economic, and
energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 103, 11206 -11210.

Hirsch, R.L., 2008. Mitigation of maximum world oil production: shortage scenarios. Energy
Policy 36, 881-889.

Hsu, P.H., 1975. Precipitation of phosphate from solution using aluminum salt. Water Res. 9,
1155-1161.

Kilian, L., 2008. Exogenous oil supply shocks: how big are they and how much do they matter for
the U.S. economy? Review Econ. Stat. 90, 216-240.

Kim, S., Dale, B.E., 2005. Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized for producing
biofuels: bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass Bioenergy 29, 426-439.
 79
Larsdotter, K., Jansen, J. la C., Dalhammar, G., 2007. Biologically mediated phosphorus
precipitation in wastewater treatment with microalgae. Environ. Technol. 28, 953.

Lavoie, A., de la Noue, J., 1987. Harvesting of Scenedesmus obliquus in Wastewaters: Auto- or
Bioflocculation? Biotechnol. Bioengin. 30, 852-859.

Moellmer, W., 1974. Factors Controlling Autoflocculation for Algae and Algal Nutrient Removal
(Ph.D. Dissertation), University of California, Berkeley.

Pavoni, J.L., Keiber, S.W., Boblitt, G.T., 1974. The harvesting of algae as a food source from
wastewater using natural and induced flocculation techniques, in: Wastewater Use in
the Production of Food and Fiber - - Proceedings, Environmental Protection Technology
Series. Presented at the Conference on the Use of Wastewater in the Production of
Food and Fiber, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, pp. 435-496.

Pimentel, D., Patzek, T., 2005. Ethanol Production Using Corn, Soybeans, Switchgrass, and
Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower. Nat. Resour. Res. 14, 65-76.

Ragauskas, A., Williams, C., Davison, B., Britovsek, G., Cairney, J., Eckert, C., Frederick, W.,
Hallett, J., Leak, D., Liotta, C., Mielenz, J., Murphy, R., Templer, R., Tschaplinski, T., 2006.
The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials. Science 311, 484-489.

Richmond, A., 2004. Handbook of Microalgal Culture - Biotechnology and Applied Phycology.
Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford.

Rubio, J., Souza, M.L., Smith, R.W., 2002. Overview of flotation as a wastewater treatment
technique. Miner. Eng. 15, 139-155.

Sawyer, C., McCarty, P., Parkin, G., 2003. Chemistry for Environmental Engineering and Science,
5th ed. McGraw-Hill., Boston.

Schuessler, R.G., 1967. An Investigation of the Chemical Flocculation and Auto-Flocculation of

Algae (Masters Thesis), University of Notre Dame.

Sheehan, J., Dunahay, T., Benemann, J., Roessler, P., 1998. A Look Back at the U.S. Department
of Energys Aquatic Species Program - Biodiesel from Algae. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.

Smith, D.J., Underwood, G.J.C., 2000. The production of extracellular carbohydrates by estuarine
benthic diatoms: the effects of growth phase and light and dark treatment. J. Phycol. 36,
321-333.

Staats, N., Stal, L., Mur, L., 2000. Exopolysaccharide production by the epipelic diatom
Cylindrotheca closterium: effects of nutrient conditions. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 249, 13-
27.
 80
Sukenik, A., Shelef, G., 1984. Algal autoflocculation - verification and proposed mechanism.
Biotechnol. Bioeng. 26, 142-147.

SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2010. Middle Bear River and Cutler Reservoir: Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Utah Division of Water Quality.

Teixeira, M.R., Rosa, M.J., 2006. Comparing dissolved air flotation and conventional
sedimentation to remove cyanobacterial cells of Microcystis aeruginosa: Part I: The key
operating conditions. Sep. Purif. Technol. 52, 84-94.

Tian, Y., Zheng, L., Sun, D.-zhi, 2006. Functions and behaviors of activated sludge extracellular
polymeric substances (EPS): a promising environmental interest. J. Environ. Sci. 18, 420-
427.

Tilman, D., Hill, J., Lehman, C., 2006. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity
grassland biomass. Science 314, 1598-1600.

Wang, B., Li, Y., Wu, N., Lan, C.Q., 2008. CO2 bio-mitigation using microalgae. Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol 79, 707-718.

Wolfstein, K., Stal, L.J., 2002. Production of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) by benthic
diatoms: effect of irradiance and temperature. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 236, 13-22.

Wolverton, B.C., McDonald, R.C., 1979. Upgrading facultative wastewater lagoons with vascular
aquatic plants. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 51, 305-313.

Zhang, X., Hu, Q., Sommerfeld, M., Puruhito, E., Chen, Y., 2010. Harvesting algal biomass for
biofuels using ultrafiltration techniques. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 5297-5304.
 81

APPENDICES
 82
APPENDIX A: NUTRIENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AT THE LOGAN LAGOONS

A1.1 Introduction

Since it has been previously shown that temperature, irradiance, and nutrient levels

have a positive effect on EPS production in algae, it is important to know how these variables

change and how they impact the algae growing in the Logan Lagoons. In order to determine the

range of these values, several monitoring tests were designed and run at different points

throughout the year. The first of these tests involved a small-scale, indoor, raceway filled with

Logan Lagoons effluent. This raceway was constructed by a previous graduate student, and was

used twice to collect two separate sets of data. First, the algae culture was given daily nutrient

addition of nitrogen and phosphorus and allowed to increase to the capacity of the raceway.

The raceway was refilled, and this time, did not receive additional nutrients. The response of

the raceway was monitored, and was used for the second set of data.

The second test involved a wide range of nutrient testing done by undergraduate

students on the Logan Lagoons effluent from July 2010 to August 2011. A range of tests were

performed on the effluent three times a week, including total suspended solids (TSS), total and

soluble P, total and soluble N, orthophosphate, ammonia, total and soluble COD, and pH. The

tests that are the most relevant are TSS, TP, and pH.

The third test involved observing the settleable solids of the wastewater. Using an

Imhoff cone, the amount of settleable solids in the Logan Lagoons effluent was determined over

the course of a day.

The fourth and final test involved a weather station located in Logan, UT. This weather

station, run by Campbell Scientific, is approximately 2.75 miles from the Logan Lagoons research

site. This weather station publishes a variety of environmental conditions on the Campbell
 83
Scientific website, including air temperature, precipitation, solar radiation, relative humidity,

and wind speed. This data is published hourly for the last 24 hours, but a computer script was

written which downloads this data on a daily basis, providing hourly weather data starting in

October 2010.

A1.2 Materials and Methods

A1.2.1 Indoor raceway with and without nutrient addition

The raceway used in this experiment was constructed by Nathan Israelsen and Erick

Griffiths, who permitted it to be used for this experiment. It measures 8 feet long by 3 feet wide

by 3 feet tall, and holds a volume of 450 L. This raceway has curved corners to eliminate

locations of low flow, and a paddlewheel to keep the culture flowing smoothly. It is surrounded

by natural wavelength fluorescent bulbs on two sides and the bottom, in order to provide

sufficient light for algal growth.

The first time the raceway was operated, nutrients were added on a regular basis. In

order to properly monitor this raceway, a number of steps were completed 5 days a week

(Monday through Friday). The water level was measured at a specific point, and water was

added to bring the total depth up to 10 inches. The calibration of a pH meter was checked, and

if no recalibration was required, then the pH and temperature of the raceway was measured at

the same location as the water. Three 250 mL samples were then pulled from the raceway

surface at the same location.

Following Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater (Eaton,

Clesceri, Rice, Greenberg, and Franson, 2005a), a TSS test was performed on each of the three

samples. Additionally, a total nitrogen test (using the persulfate digestion method (Eaton,

Clesceri, Rice, Greenberg, and Franson, 2005c)) and total phosphorus test (using the acid
 84

Fig. A-1: Small-scale raceway growing an algal culture

persulfate digestion method (Eaton, Clesceri, Rice, Greenberg, and Franson, 2005b)) were

performed in triplicate on these samples. These tests were performed using Hach Test N Tube

kits, which are based on the Standard Methods procedures. After these values are obtained,

calculations were performed in order to determine the proper amount of nutrients to add to the

raceway. For this raceway batch, the target nutrient level was 5 mg P/L and 80 mg N/L

(maintaining a 16:1 N:P ratio). Nitrogen was added in the form of sodium nitrate (NaNO3).

Phosphorus was added as a combination of 25% dibasic potassium phosphate (K 2HPO4) and 75%

monobasic potassium phosphate (KH2PO4).

For the second raceway run, the same procedure was followed as before, only no

nutrients were added to the system. An initial balance of the nutrients was performed,

however, with the total phosphorus levels brought up to 5 mg/L and total nitrogen brought up

to 80 mg/L. Also for this run, a Hach pH probe was used for continuous pH measurement, in

order to get a more accurate pH profile.

 85
A1.2.3 Logan Lagoons Effluent Nutrient Analysis

This testing was completed from July 2010 to August 2011. For the first few months of

operation (July and August 2010), multiple people were scheduled to complete this testing,

which introduced a large amount of error into the data set. Once two undergraduate

researchers were assigned with this as their sole task, the error in the data was greatly reduced.

The following tests were completed using their appropriate Hach testing kits; total and

soluble phosphorus, total and soluble nitrogen, orthophosphate, ammonia, and total and

soluble chemical oxygen demand. Temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and total suspended

solids were completed using the procedure outlined in Standard Methods. Additionally, in the

summer of 2011, the following tests were added to the testing: volatile suspended solids, total

nitrate, and total nitrite.

A1.2.4 Settleable solids testing

In order to determine the settleable solids of the Logan Lagoons effluent, the Standard

Methods procedure was followed (Eaton, Clesceri, Rice, Greenberg, and Franson, 2005d). An

Imhoff cone was filled with the liquid in question to the 1 L mark. The liquid was passed through

a rough filter. This removes the larger daphnia present, preventing them from eating the algae

during the test. The cone then sat undisturbed for 45 minutes; after this time had elapsed, the

cone was gently swirled to break loose any particles from the side of the cone and sat back

down. After 1 hour total time, the amount of settled solids was read off of the cone, in units of

mL/L.

This test was first done on the Logan Lagoons effluent throughout the course of a day, in

order to determine a baseline for settleabilty of the Logan Lagoons algae. This procedure was

performed throughout the course of the day, from 5 am to 11 pm, every three hours. Two
 86
Imhoff cones were available, so duplicate data was obtained. According to Standard Methods,

duplicate data are not normally required, but this data was collected for completeness.

A1.2.4 Weather Station Data

A computer script was written that would access the hourly weather data on the

Campbell Scientific website and save the website to a computer as an html file. This data could

then be extracted and added to an Excel spreadsheet for further analysis.

A1.3 Results and Discussion

A1.3.1 Indoor raceway with and without nutrient addition

The goal of this phase of testing was observe the pH changes of a batch culture of algae

over time, while also monitoring the TSS increase. This would show the possibility for

autoflocculation to occur in a future large-scale raceway at the Logan Lagoons.

600

500

400
TSS (mg/L)

300

200

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Day of operation

Fig. A-2: TSS vs. day of operation, small raceway with nutrient addition (Sept 16 - Oct 15, 2010)

Fig. A-2 shows the growth curve in this raceway (error bars are equal to 1 standard

deviation). The regular nutrient addition helped increase the total suspended solids from
 87
approximately 25 mg/L to over 500 mg/L in less than a month. The growth leveled off at this

point because the carrying capacity of this raceway had been met. Since this culture is not

nutrient limited, the growth plateau is most likely caused by a light limitation.

14

12

10

8
pH

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Day of operation

Fig. A-3: pH vs. day of operation, small raceway with nutrient addition (Sept 16 - Oct 15 2010)

In Fig. A-3 it is illustrated how the pH of the algal culture quickly increased. By the time

the algae concentration had reached 500 mg/L, the pH of the system was almost 12. This

indicates that this culture would have been easily autoflocculated.

60
50
40
TSS (mg/L)

30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Day of operation

Fig. A-4: TSS vs. day of operation, small raceway without nutrient addition (Nov 3-26 2010)
 88
When these graphs are compared to the raceway run without nutrient addition, a

number of interesting comparisons can be made. In Fig. A-4, the TSS level did not increase

nearly as high; the amount of algae did increase from 23 mg/L to 39 mg/L at the peak, but never

higher. In this situation, the algal culture was nutrient limited, not light limited.

12

11

10
pH

6
10/19/2010 [Link] 11/3/2010 [Link] 11/18/2010 [Link] 12/3/2010 [Link]
Date and Time
Fig. A-5: pH vs. date, small raceway without nutrient addition (Nov 3-26 2010)

In Fig. A-5, the pH of the raceway behaved very similar to the pH when there was

regular nutrient addition. It didnt reach quite as high without nutrient addition (only pH 11 at

its highest), but this is still high enough to cause autoflocculation.

A1.3.2 Logan Lagoons Effluent Nutrient Analysis

The following graphs detail the season average values for TSS, TP, and pH. The error

bars are equal to one standard deviation.

 89
70

60

50
TSS (mg/L)

40

30

20

10

0
Summer 2010 Fall 2010 Winter 2010- Spring 2011 Summer 2011
2011

Fig. A-6: Seasonal TSS averages in the Logan Lagoons

6
Total P (mg/L)

0
Summer 2010 Fall 2010 Winter 2010- Spring 2011 Summer 2011
2011

Fig. A-7: Seasonal TP averages in the Logan Lagoons

 90
9.5

pH 8.5

7.5

6.5
Summer 2010 Fall 2010 Winter 2010- Spring 2011 Summer 2011
2011
Fig. A-8: Seasonal pH averages in the Logan Lagoons

A1.3.3 Settleable solids testing

The amount of settleable solids was first tested using the Logan Lagoons effluent as a

baseline. As can be seen in Fig. A-9, there is virtually no settleability in the effluent as it emerges

from the Logan Lagoons.

0.5
0.45
0.4
Settleable Solids (mL/L)

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
12:00 AM 4:48 AM 9:36 AM 2:24 PM 7:12 PM 12:00 AM 4:48 AM
Time

Fig. A-9: Settleable solids in Logan Lagoons effluent (July 6, 2011)

91

The weather station data collected for the months of October 2010 through July 2011 has

Feb 2011
Oct 2010

Jan 2011

Jan 2011
provided an overview of the temperature and solar radiation ranges for the fall summer

2010

2010

2010

2011
2010

2010
Nov

Dec

Nov

Dec

Feb
Oct
Fig. A-10: Air temperature in Logan, UT (Oct 2010 - July 2011)

Fig. A-11: Solar radiation in Logan, UT (Oct 2010 - July 2011)

9/2/2011 9/2/2011 0:00
8/15/2011 8/15/2011 0:00
7/28/2011 7/28/2011 0:00
7/10/2011 7/10/2011 0:00
6/22/2011 6/22/2011 0:00
6/4/2011 6/4/2011 0:00
5/17/2011 5/17/2011 0:00
4/29/2011 4/29/2011 0:00
4/11/2011 4/11/2011 0:00
3/24/2011 3/24/2011 0:00
3/6/2011 3/6/2011 0:00
2/16/2011 2/16/2011 0:00
1/29/2011 1/29/2011 0:00
1/11/2011 1/11/2011 0:00
12/24/2010 12/24/2010 0:00
12/6/2010 12/6/2010 0:00
11/18/2010 11/18/2010 0:00
A1.3.4 Weather station data

10/31/2010 10/31/2010 0:00

10/13/2010 10/13/2010 0:00
9/25/2010 9/25/2010 0:00
9/7/2010 9/7/2010 0:00

80

60

40

20

0
100

-20

0
1200

1000

800

600

400

200
Temperature (oF) Solar Radiation (W/m2)

months.
 92
A1.4 Conclusion

These monitoring tests will be helpful for predictions in other parts of this project. A

batch algal culture will reach a high pH value (10-11) whether or not nutrients are added. If

nutrients are added to the system, however, the TSS will rise significantly, until the carrying

capacity of the raceway is reached, which is advantageous for purposes of algal harvesting. This

high pH indicates that autoflocculation should be a possibility with the algal species found at the

Logan Lagoons.

It was also observed that even though the TSS is highest in the winter months, the TP

loading is highest in the summer. Since there is a higher volume of water flowing into the plant

during warmer months, from both snow runoff and rainfall, it makes sense that the algae is

being diluted by this stormwater. Also, any fertilizer runoff during the summer months would

be contributing to the TP levels, but not the algae concentration. This is actually good news for

the purposes of harvesting algae. A batch algae culture, in the summer heat and sun, along with

increased phosphorus levels, should grow very well. It can be determined from the weather

data that both July and October have the highest air temperatures, and it can be assumed that

August and September have similar levels. Additionally, the solar radiation during May, June,

and July is the highest among the available data. It is not known how long this trend will last,

because October is significantly lower, but most likely August is also this sunny.

Finally, with the Imhoff cones, on can look at the baseline data and see that there is

virtually no natural settling occurring without any treatment of the water in the effluent.
 93
APPENDIX B: SCRIPT FOR WEATHER DATA COLLECTION FROM CAMPBELL SCIENTIFIC

Fig. B-1: Computer script for daily weather data collection

 94
APPENDIX C: SAS PROGRAMS

Note: for Part C1, all of the output for Run #1 is included, including graphical assumption

checks. For subsequent SAS work, only the relevant code will be included.

C1: Steady state calculations for pilot DAF unit

Fig. C-1: Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, input code (1 of 3)
 95

Fig. C-2: Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, input code (2 of 3)

Fig. C-3: Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, input code (3 of 3)
 96

Fig. C-4: Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, output code (1 of 5)
 97

Fig. C-5: Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, output code (2 of 5)
 98

Fig. C-6: Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, output code (3 of 5)
 99

Fig. C-7: Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, output code (4 of 5)
 100

Fig. C-8: Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, output code (5 of 5)

Fig. C-9: Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, output graphs (1 of 2)
 101

Fig. C-10: Steady-state calculations for pilot DAF unit, output graphs (2 of 2)
 102
C2: Initial data for pilot DAF unit

Fig. C-11: Initial data for pilot DAF unit, input code (1 of 4)
 103

Fig. C-12: Initial data for pilot DAF unit, input code (2 of 4)

Fig. C-13: Initial data for pilot DAF unit, input code (3 of 4)
 104

Fig. C-14: Initial data for pilot DAF unit, input code (4 of 4)
 105

Fig. C-15: Initial data for pilot DAF unit, output code (1 of 4)

Fig. C-16: Initial data for pilot DAF unit, output code (2 of 4)
 106

Fig. C-17: Initial data for pilot DAF unit, output code (3 of 4)

Fig. C-18: Initial data for pilot DAF unit, output code (4 of 4)
 107
C3: Alum dose determination with jar test unit

Fig. C-19: Alum dose determination with jar test unit, input code (1 of 6)
 108

Fig. C-20: Alum dose determination with jar test unit, input code (2 of 6)
 109

Fig. C-21: Alum dose determination with jar test unit, input code (3 of 6)
 110

Fig. C-22: Alum dose determination with jar test unit, input code (4 of 6)
 111

Fig. C-23: Alum dose determination with jar test unit, input code (5 of 6)
 112

Fig. C-24: Alum dose determination with jar test unit, input code (6 of 6)
 113

Fig. C-25: Alum dose determination with jar test unit, output code (1 of 6)
 114

Fig. C-26: Alum dose determination with jar test unit, output code (2 of 6)

Fig. C-27: Alum dose determination with jar test unit, output code (3 of 6)
 115

Fig. C-28: Alum dose determination with jar test unit, output code (4 of 6)
 116

Fig. C-29: Alum dose determination with jar test unit, output code (5 of 6)

Fig. C-30: Alum dose determination with jar test unit, output code (6 of 6)
 117
C4: Environmental effects on jar test unit operation

Fig. C-31: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 8:20 am, input code (1 of 4)
 118

Fig. C-32: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 8:20 am, input code (2 of 4)

Fig. C-33: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 8:20 am, input code (3 of 4)
 119

Fig. C-34: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 8:20 am, input code (4 of 4)
 120

Fig. C-35: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 8:20 am, output code (1 of 2)
 121

Fig. C-36: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 8:20 am, output code (2 of 2)
 122

Fig. C-37: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 9:03 am, input code (1 of 4)

Fig. C-38: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 9:03 am, input code (2 of 4)
 123

Fig. C-39: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 9:03 am, input code (3 of 4)

Fig. C-40: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 9:03 am, input code (4 of 4)
 124

Fig. C-41: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 9:03 am, output code (1 of 2)
 125

Fig. C-42: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 9:03 am, output code (2 of 2)
 126

Fig. C-43: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 11:02 am, input code (1 of 4)
 127

Fig. C-44: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 11:02 am, input code (2 of 4)
 128

Fig. C-45: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 11:02 am, input code (3 of 4)

Fig. C-46: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 11:02 am, input code (4 of 4)
 129

Fig. C-47: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 11:02 am, output code (1 of 2)
 130

Fig. C-48: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 11:02 am, output code (2 of 2)
 131

Fig. C-49: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 12:01 pm, input code (1 of 4)
 132

Fig. C-50: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 12:01 pm, input code (2 of 4)
 133

Fig. C-51: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 12:01 pm, input code (3 of 4)

Fig. C-52: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 12:01 pm, input code (4 of 4)
 134

Fig. C-53: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 12:01 pm, output code (1 of 2)
 135

Fig. C-54: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 12:01 pm, output code (2 of 2)
 136

Fig. C-55: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 2:18 pm, input code (1 of 4)
 137

Fig. C-56: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 2:18 pm, input code (2 of 4)
 138

Fig. C-57: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 2:18 pm, input code (3 of 4)

Fig. C-58: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 2:18 pm, input code (4 of 4)
 139

Fig. C-59: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 2:18 pm, output code (1 of 2)
 140

Fig. C-60: Environmental effects on jar test operation, 2:18 pm, output code (2 of 2)
 141
APPENDIX D: CALCULATIONS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Table D-1
Calculations for economic analysis.
Stock alum solution from Thatcher
(per conversation with Jeff Zidek, Thatcher Chemical, March 25, 2011)
(Multiply 1.33 g/mL (specific gravity) 57.73765 g Al/L 15000000 gal/day in full size DAF plant
values 0.082 wt/wt Al 2O3 6.333333 Al 2(SO4)3/Al 0.041667 day/hour
going 0.529411765 Al/Al 2O3 0.016667 hour/min
down) 1000 mL/L
EQUALS EQUALS EQUALS
57.73764706 g Al/L 365.6718 g Al 2(SO4) 3/L 10416.67 gal/min in full size DAF plant

Alum
365.6717647 g alum/kg soln 10417 gal/min 4.058732764 lbs/gal 1182.979 g/min 40.53991 mL/s 925.301662 gal/day
1.33 kg/L 3.785412 L/gal 0.45359237 kg/lb 0.002056 L/g 3600 sec/hour 11.09 lbs/gal
0.001 kg/g 30 mg alum/L 0.264172053 gal/L 1000 mL/L 24 hours/day $ 0.1038 cost/lb
2.204622622 lbs/kg 0.001 g/mg 1000 g/kg 0.016667 min/sec 0.001 L/mL
3.78541178 L/gal 0.264172 gal/L
EQUALS EQUALS EQUALS EQUALS EQUALS
4.058732764 lbs alum/gal 1182.979 g/min 486.3434471 g/L 40.53991 mL/s EQUALS $ 1,065.15 cost/day
925.3017 gal/day

Polymer
0.3 mg polymer/L process $ 0.000015 cost/L process
1 mL/mg 3.78541178 L/gal
0.001 L/mL 15000000 gal/day
0.264172053 gal/L
8.33 lbs/gal
1.07 SG
$ 2.15 cost/pound polymer stock EQUALS
0.01 dilution of stock $ 862.34 cost/day
EQUALS
$ 0.000015 cost/L process