CAUSTIC SODA RECOVERY IN A BOTTLE WASHING PLANT USING

MEMBRANE TECHNOLOGY

by

Anna Marie M. Hufemia

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Engineering.

Examination Committee Dr. C. Visvanathan (Chairman)

Dr. Lars Baetz Reutergårdh
Dr. Ajit P. Annachhatre

Nationality Filipino
Previous Degree Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering
University of the Philippines Los Baños
Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines

Scholarship Donor Government of Spain

Asian Institute of Technology

School of Environment, Resources and Development
Bangkok, Thailand
August 1996

Acknowledgment
i
I wish to thank the following who, in one way or the other, contributed in the completion of
this research:

Dr. C. Visvanathan, my advisor, for his efforts in guiding me throughout my study. I was
deeply challenged to give it my best because of his constant eagerness to help.

Dr. Lars Baetz Reutergårdh and Dr. Ajit P. Annachhatre, my committee members, for their
time and valuable suggestions.

Mr. Arun Rattagool of the Thai Pure Drinks Ltd. (TPDL), for believing in the significance of
the research. I consider it a great opportunity to have worked with such a prestigious
company.

Mr. Wanchai Kamolvit and his staff, especially Prakit and Jane, for spending so much of their
time in providing me precious information about the TPDL, Pathumthani Plant.

Mr. Prapan Ariyamethee of the Liquid Purification Engineering (LPE), for his generosity in
lending his membrane pilot units and sharing his expertise in membrane technology.

Mr. Sakda Thaijanya and staff of LPE, for their most valuable assistance.

Classmates and staff of the AIT Environmental Engineering Program, for their support and
cooperation.

The government of Spain as my scholarship donor and DANIDA-AIT for granting me part of
my needed research funds.

Brethren in the AIT Christian Fellowship, family and friends for laboring with me in prayer. It
was your Christ-like love that enabled me to endure even the most trying moments of my
work.

Edwin, my lifetime partner, for fully understanding the demands of my work. It was your
unceasing love, support and encouragement that pulled me through.

Jesus, my personal Lord and Friend, for His abiding wisdom and direction. I acknowledge that
above everyone else, He deserves my sincerest thanksgiving.

Anna Marie M. Hufemia

“He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.
I will say of the Lord, “He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust”

The Holy Bible (Psalm 91:1-2)

ii
 Abstract

The feasibility of recovering caustic soda from bottle washers of a softdrink plant was
investigated at pilot-scale using microfiltration (MF) and nanofiltration (NF). This study
revealed that the MF/NF system can purify the caustic soda to a certain extent and can be
reused back to the bottle washing units. Within the studied pressure ranges, the optimum
applied pressure was determined as 101 kPa for MF, and 1,414 kPa for NF with corresponding
permeate fluxes of 235 and 15 L/m2-h respectively. Based on these figures, a large-scale
installation for the Thai Pure Drinks Ltd., Pathumthani plant was designed and a financial
analysis was conducted for the system. The MF/NF system using MEMCOR hollow fiber
membranes and MPS-34 (MWCO=300) gave a payback period of seven years and an IRR of
13.7%, rendering the system not financially feasible.

An overall water balance was drawn to find alternatives for water purification and
reuse in the plant that would lead to reduction of raw water consumption and liquid discharge
into the river. It was found that reuse of microfiltered wastewater treatment plant effluent can
reduce groundwater input by 40% and liquid discharged to the receiving water by 65.5%. Two
proposed options for reclaiming bottle washing rinse water are treatment by reverse osmosis
(RO) or purification by ion-exchange (IE). Based on theoretical considerations, an MF/RO
system will recover both pure water and concentrated caustic in the process. On the other
hand, IE will recover water fit for reuse in the bottle washers. The two conceptual designs
have a payback period of 3.2 and 3.4 years respectively, while the internal rate of return are
31.3% and 30.5%

iii
 Table of Contents

Chapter Title Page

Title Page i
Acknowledgment ii
Abstract iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Abbreviations vi
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii

1 Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Objectives 2
1.3 Scope and Limitations 2

2 Literature Review
2.1 Bottle-Washing in the Softdrink Industry 3
2.1.1 Bottle Washing Requirements 3
2.1.2 Wastewater Generated from Bottle-Washing 4
2.2 Methods in Caustic Soda Recovery 5
2.3 Separation Processes in Membrane Technology 7
2.3.1 Microfiltration and Nanofiltration Membranes 8
2.3.2 Industrial Applications of MF and NF in Water and 9
Wastewater Treatment
2.4 Zero Liquid Discharge in Industries 13

3 Background Information on the Research Site

3.1 Plant Location and Layout 14
3.2 Softdrink Production 14
3.2.1 Process Description 14
3.2.2 Production Schedule and Capacity 17
3.3 Water and Wastewater Sources and Treatment 18
3.3.1 Water Source and Treatment Process 18
3.3.2 Wastewater Treatment System 20
3.4 Bottle-Washing Process 20
3.4.1 Bottle-Washer Operation 20
3.4.2 Caustic Cleaning Solution 23

iv
Chapter Title Page

4 Methodology
4.1 Caustic Solution Characterization 25
4.2 Pilot-scale Membrane Filtration of Caustic Waste 25
4.2.1 Microfiltration of Caustic Waste 25
4.2.2 Nanofiltration of Caustic Waste 27
4.2.3 Membrane System Design and Financial Analysis 27
4.3 Investigation on Water Consumption and Wastewater Generation 28
4.3.1 Analysis of Bottle Washer Effluent Streams 28
4.3.2 Water Quality Determination 28
4.3.3 Data Collection for Water Consumption and Wastewater 29
Generation
4.4 Proposals for Water Purification and Reuse in the Factory 29

5 Results and Discussion

5.1 Characterization of Caustic Solution 30
5.2 Microfiltration of Caustic Waste 33
5.3 Nanofiltration of Microfiltration Permeate 38
5.4 Membrane System Design for Caustic Recovery 42
5.4.1 Caustic Consumption in the Plant 42
5.4.2 Membrane Recovery System 45
5.5 Financial Analysis of the Membrane Installation 48
5.5.1 Projected Savings 48
5.5.2 Payback Period and Internal Rate of Return 48
5.6 Demand for Water in the Plant 49
5.6.1 Raw Water Consumption 50
5.6.2 Pre-treated Water Consumption 50
5.6.3 Soft Water Consumption 51
5.6.4 Treated Water Consumption 51
5.7 Rate of Wastewater Generation 53
5.8 Water Reuse Strategies in the Plant 56
5.8.1 Rationale of Recycling Water in the Plant 56
5.8.2 Microfiltration of Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent 56
5.8.3 Purification and Reuse of Bottle Washer Rinse Water 57

6 Conclusions and Recommendations 64

References 66

Appendices 69

v
 List of Abbreviations

CO2 carbon dioxide

COD chemical oxygen demand
DF dual-media filter
EDR electrodialysis
HCl hydrochloric acid
HF hollow fiber
IE ion exchange
IRR internal rate of return
MF microfiltration
MPW Membrane Products Kiryat Weizmann, Ltd.
MWCO molecular weight cutoff
Na2CO3 sodium carbonate
NaOH caustic soda or sodium hydroxide
NF nanofiltration
NPV net present value
PET polyethylene terepthalate
PLC programmable logic controller
PP payback period
R rejection rate
RO reverse osmosis
SW spiral wound
TDS total dissolved solids
TMP transmembrane pressure
TPDL Thai Pure Drinks, Ltd
UF ultrafiltration
WWTP wastewater treatment plant

vi
 List of Tables

Table No. Title Page

2.1 Quality of wastes from bottle washing for various beverages 4

2.2 Typical wastewater characteristics generated from softdrink companies 5
2.3 List of commercial crossflow microfilter polymeric materials and their 8
geometries
2.4 Chemicals compatible with various commercially-available microfilter media 10
2.5 Characteristics of various commercially-available nanofilters 11
2.6 Membrane separation technologies for wastewater treatment 12
3.1 Treatment efficiency of the biological WWTP 20
3.2 Specifications of the soaking compartments of Bottle Washers A and B 23
3.3 Specifications of the soaking compartments of Bottle Washers D1 and D2 23
4.1 Parameters measured for caustic solution characterization 25
4.2 Parameters monitored during operation of the membrane filtration pilot unit 26
5.1 Major components of the membrane system design 47
5.2 Value of recoverable caustic from the four Bottle washers 48
5.3 Financial analysis of the MF/NF recovery system 49
5.4 Characteristics of different types of process water available in the plant 49
5.5 Average water consumption and wastewater generation rates of the plant 55
5.6 Treatment efficiency of the 60M10C MF unit in filtering WWTP effluent 57
5.7 Comparison of the bottle washer wastewater characteristics 59
5.8 Comparison of proposed rinse water recovery systems 62

List of Figures

Figure No. Title Page

2.1 Integration of caustic soda recovery process ALKASAVE in 6

vii
 dairies/beverages
2.2 Separation scheme for the different membrane systems 7
2.3 NaOH recovery from textile industrial effluents using MF-NF process 12
3.1 Location map of Thai Pure Drinks Ltd, Pathumthani Plant 14
3.2 Plant layout of TPDL, Pathumthani Plant 15
3.3 Process flow diagram of softdrinks production by TPDL 16
3.4 Monthly production of TPDL, Pathumthani for year 1995 17
3.5 Process flow diagram for producing pre-treated, soft and treated waters. 19
3.6 Wastewater treatment system of TPDL, Pathumthani Plant 21
3.7 Diagrammatic view of a typical four-compartment bottle washer 22
3.8 Monthly caustic soda (32% solution) consumption for the year 1995 24
4.1 MEMTEC Microfiltration pilot unit 26
4.2 Detailed flow diagram of the MEMTEC MF pilot unit 27
4.3 Nanofiltration pilot unit, Model M204-SW by Membrane Products, Kiryat 28
Weizmann Ltd.
4.4 Detailed flow diagram of the M204-SW nanofiltration pilot unit 29
5.1 Behavior of pH against production time per soaking compartment 31
5.2 TDS behavior against production time per soaking compartment 31
5.3 Conductivity behavior against production time per soaking compartment 32
5.4 COD behavior against production time per soaking compartment. 32
5.5 Apparent color profile against production time per compartment 33
5.6 A schematic of a hollow-fiber membrane 34
5.7 Total recycle crossflow microfiltration system 35
5.8 Permeate flux at increasing MF pressure 36
5.9 COD removal and NaOH recovery at increasing MF pressure 37
5.10 Apparent color reduction by microfiltration 37
5.11 Schematic of a spiral wound membrane element 38
5.12 Permeate flux at increasing NF pressure 39
5.13 COD reduction after nanofiltration at diffent pressures 40
5.14 Color reduction and NaOH recovery at different NF pressures 40
5.15 Appearance of caustic solution after MF and NF filtration 41
5.16 Treatment efficiencies of MF and NF at the optimum pressure 41
5.17 Material Balance around Bottle Washer B 44
5.18 Present scheme of caustic use in the plant 45
5.19 Caustic recovery system design schematic 46
5.20 Overall water usage balance in the plant 52
5.21 Water consumption and wastewater generation in the plant 54
5.22 Water balance showing the reuse of microfiltered WWTP effluent 58
5.23 Schematic of the proposed MF/RO system for caustic and water recovery 60
5.24 Water balance showing the reuse of membrane filtered rinse water 61
5.25 Design schematic of the IE system for final rinse recovery 62
5.26 Water balance showing the reuse of recovered rinse water by ion exchange 63

viii
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1 Background of the Study

The advent of using light containers such as aluminum cans and polyethylene terepthalate
(PET) bottles for beverage packaging has not at all phased-out the use of glass bottles. Today,
glass bottles are still being reused widely by beer and softdrink companies. The reuse of such in
the production process entails a thorough cleaning of these returnable bottles before refilling.

During the bottle cleaning process, the beverage industry uses a large quantity of water
(Tay and Jeyaseelan, 1994) and caustic soda (NaOH) solution (MPW, 1994) for washing and
rinsing operations. For economic reasons, many factories recycle the caustic cleaning solutions
several times in the process. Fresh caustic solution is just added to the recycled solution until the
required concentration is reached. This technique results to significant reduction in the
consumption of caustic soda and water. However, build-up of organic contaminants including
sugars and color additives leads to the discharging of larger than necessary amounts of caustic
solution during rinsing operations. Also, organic pollutants are hydrolyzed by the caustic soda,
rendering the cleaning capacity of the solution less effective.

Settling or sand filtration may also be used to clarify the spent caustic solution
contaminated with straws, cigarette butts and various other kinds of solids (Jacobs, 1959) before it
is reused in the process. However, these techniques can only remove suspended solids or particles,
while other organic contaminants will remain dissolved with the filtrate. This means, the
recovered caustic soda will not have the same caustic strength as before.

When spent caustic soda is finally discharged, the usual practice is to treat it by
neutralization using acidic waste streams. The problem with this process is that it produces a
solution highly loaded with sodium that will eventually be detrimental to soil quality. Therefore,
an effective way of minimizing the amount of caustic soda used and discharged from a processing
plant must be found.

Membrane filtration is one technique used in the practice of solid-liquid separation and is
currently gaining popularity in water and wastewater treatment (Ben Aim and Vigneswaran,
1988). Membrane systems such as microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF)
and reverse osmosis (RO) are now being used alone or with other treatment technologies in
implementing pollution prevention programs. Plant operations that are now taking advantage of
its benefits include reducing the chemical oxygen demand (COD) of wastewater before biological
treatment by NF or RO; and fractionating and purifying materials for biotechnology applications
by MF or UF (Cartwright, 1994).

Membrane technology can also be applied for caustic soda recovery. This is done by
passing the caustic solution through base-stable membranes which can remove some, if not all,
types of dissolved and suspended organic contaminants. Particles and colloids with size greater

1
than 0.02 µm can be effectively rejected by MF. On the other hand, NF can separate molecules
and ions with size less than 10o A (Vigneswaran et al., 1991). When membrane filtration is
employed, the caustic solution may be recovered and the amount used in the process will
consequently be reduced. Likewise, the total required volume of process water will be reduced.
However, very little information is available on this kind of membrane system application. The
few studies done on the feasibility of this membrane application were conducted by manufacturers
of alkali-stable membrane themselves.

In Thailand, growth in number and capacity of food manufacturing plants is constantly

increasing. The beverage industry in particular, is also catching up with the rapid development of
this newly industrialized country. It must be noted however, that this industry requires huge
amounts of good quality water in their processes. This makes them one of the major contributors
to the problem of depletion of industrial water resources in the country. Therefore, it is foreseen
that a technology which can substantially reduce the amount of process water in bottle-washing
plants will be of significant help to conserving the water resources of the country.

1.2 Objectives

The main objective of this research was to study the feasibility of caustic soda recovery
using membrane technology. Specifically it aimed to:

1. determine the performance of microfiltration and nanofiltration in caustic soda recovery at

pilot-scale level in terms of rejection rate, optimum applied pressure and permeate quality;

2. make a financial analysis of membrane installation for caustic soda recovery in a large-
scale beverage plant; and

3. prepare a proposal for overall water reuse strategies to minimize liquid discharge in a
softdrink company.

1.3 Scope and Limitations

The research site is the Pathumthani plant of the Thai Pure Drinks, Ltd. (TPDL) which
manufactures among other beverage products, the Coca-Cola softdrink. The focus of the research
was on the recovery of spent caustic soda used in the bottle-washer of this factory at pilot-scale
level using microfiltration and nanofiltration systems. At the same time, the water consumption
profile of the company was investigated with the aim of finding ways to reduce the raw water
input demand using other viable membrane applications.

Whenever possible, data available from the company were used for the analyses involved
in the study. The outcome of this research is specifically beneficial to the Thai Pure Drinks, Ltd.,
Pathumthani plant. However, it can be also be applicable to other factories that discharge spent
caustic soda and process water with similar characteristics to that of TPDL.

2
 CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

The softdrink industry forms a large part of the food and beverage
industry. Thus, it is important to study the nature and amount of wastewater
generated by large-scale softdrink manufacturing plants. One specific source of
wastewater in softdrink production is the bottle-washing operation. This is one of
the operations which contributes to the major product losses of the bottling
industry (Viraraghan, 1994). Hence, it is essential to look into how this type of
wastewater is being generated, handled and treated.

2.1 Bottle Washing in the Softdrink Industry

One of the most important processes in softdrink production is bottle-

washing. The high quality of the product depends largely on how thoroughly the
bottles are cleaned immediately before filling. The bottling process starts with
the passing of the returnable bottles through a wash and rinse sequence. Then,
the cleaned bottles are carefully inspected before they go automatically through
consecutive steps of filling, crowning, mixing, labeling, packaging and shipping
(Shukla and Pandey, 1979). During this phase of production, wastewater will be
generated from bottle washing and rinsing, labeling, production line spillage,
equipment lubrication and washdowns (Capobianco and Blanc, 1990). The
wastewater could contain waste softdrink, syrup, detergents, lubricants and
caustic.

2.1.1 Bottle Washing Requirements

Bottle washing consists of soaking or flushing the bottles with caustic soda
solution, sometimes combined with other cleansing agents such as soda ash,
sodium aluminate, or trisodium phosphate. The bottles are then scrubbed both
inside and out before they are rinsed with potable water. In order to have an
efficient washing process, several factors must be controlled in the bottle-
washing operation (Jacobs, 1959):

• adequate concentration of sterilizing and detergent agents;

• proper composition of the agents;
• adequate temperature of the washing solution;
• sufficient exposure time of the bottles to the washing and sterilizing agents;
3
 • proper rinsing water; and
• proper maintenance of the bottle-washing equipment.

The bottle-washing equipment may be classified into three types, namely:

immersion or soaker washers; immersion with brushing washers; and Hydro
washers using powerful jets. The bottles enter the washer through an automatic loader
which handles the bottles separately from each other. Then, they get a pre-rinse before they
enter a series of soaking compartments containing caustic solutions at a specific temperature.
After the bottles go through final rinsing, they are discharged from the washer in a gentle
motion and placed in an upright position for further visual inspection.

The washing solutions will gradually lose its caustic strength as the washing process
progresses. Reaction with impurities depletes the NaOH in solution therefore, there is a need
to check the causticity periodically so that the caustic concentration may be adjusted as
required.

2.1.2 Wastewater Generated from Bottle-Washing

Wastes from the bottle washer are highly alkaline in nature, since the washer consists
of a series of alkaline baths. It also often contains large amounts of suspended solids resulting
from straws, cigarettes butts, paper and other refuse left in the bottles which lead to a high
BOD concentration of the wastewater. A typical composition of wastes from bottle cleaning of
different beverage industries was reported by Nemerow (1978) as shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Quality of wastes from bottle washing for various beverages

BOD5 KMnO4 Settleable

Types of product bottles (mg/L) consumption pH substances
(mg/L) (mg/L)
Wine 4.5 - 15 12-16 8.1-8.4 0-0.15
Beer 185-705 290-1930 9.5-11.9 0.2
Milk 6.3-25 9.5-46 8.6-10.1 0.1
Sweetened clear lemonade 295-600 928-1196 8.4-8.5 1.5-3.8
Cola drinks 340 1370 10.1 0.2
Fruit juice drinks 450 1320 9.4 2.5

Fresnius et al. (1989) reported that in bottling industries, the amount of wastewater
generated can range from 166-223 L/100 bottles, with 107-123 L/100 bottles coming from
bottle washers alone. Organic contamination can be reduced by up to 70% by retention and
filtering of sediment and yeast that may be present in the bottle-washer wastewater.

Most bottling plants do not recover the caustic solution. They simply dispose of their
spent caustic soda when it has become very dirty after several times of recycling. As
previously mentioned, the caustic soda may be neutralized by available acidic waste streams.
4
Otherwise, new acidic solutions are added to it for neutralization. In most cases, the spent
caustic solution goes to the wastewater treatment plant along with the other wastewater
generated from other operations of the plant.

One means of removing solids from the bottle washer is by screening. This is usually
done to remove foreign matter left in bottles. To reduce the volume of waste, some plants
reuse final rinse water for the bottle washer for pre-rinsing the dirty bottles or for other uses
(Nemerow, 1978). Removal of waste drink and debris from the bottles and removal of labels
before washing yields a pronounced reduction in BOD and suspended solids in the
wastewater.
Wastewater from the softdrink industry originates from syrup manufacturing and
packaging, bottling production runs, process water purification and washdowns of equipment
and conduits (Capobianco and Blanc, 1990). Wastewater characteristics generated from the
whole production process by two leading softdrink manufacturers in the world, according to
Nemerow (1978) are shown in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 Typical wastewater characteristics generated from softdrink companies

Beverage BOD5 Total solids Mineral Acidity Total Acidity

pH
Company (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Coca-Cola 67,400 2.4 114,900 244 1526
Pepsi-Cola 79,500 2.5 122,000 248 1466

Today there are several methods used for the treatment of such waste which includes
both biological and physico-chemical methods. Often, these sofdrink industries employ
conventional methods in their wastewater treatment plants such as activated sludge, anaerobic
or aerobic lagoons and deep bed filtration to meet effluent standards.

2.2 Methods in Caustic Soda Recovery

To economize on the washing chemicals, a recovery process for caustic soda must be
used. Jacobs (1959) recommended a physical and a chemical process to economically
recover caustic solutions. Recovery by physical methods can be achieved by discharging the
more concentrated caustic solutions to settling tanks while the less concentrated solutions are
disposed of into drains. This is done when the whole bottle washing unit is emptied. This is a
relatively simple recovery process but can lead to wastage of large amounts of caustic.

In the chemical recovery of caustic, the principle of sodium hydroxide production can
be used. The reactions involved in this process are:

CaO + H2O → Ca(OH)2 (Equation 2.1)

Na2CO3 + Ca(OH)2 → 2NaOH + CaCO3 (Equation 2.2)

These chemical equations show that the caustic in the bottle-washer which gets converted to
sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) in the presence of carbon dioxide (CO2), can be recovered by
5
reacting it with lime. Thus, to recover the caustic, the spent washing solution is drawn off into
a tank where it can undergo lime and heat treatment at around 93oC for 30 minutes. Then, the
precipitates formed such as calcium carbonate, calcium citrate, calcium tartrate, calcium
sulfate, etc., are allowed to settle for about 2 hours. After adjustment of the concentration, the
clarified caustic solution can consequently be pumped back to the washer for reuse. The
chemical recovery process may be more complicated because of the need for lime addition and
heat generation (Jacobs, 1959). But, it also may prove to be economical as time and labor for
frequent dumping of the spent caustic solution are reduced.

Membrane technology developed in the recent years has likewise found its application
in caustic soda recovery. A commercial product called SelRo membrane is claimed to be
capable of recovery and concentration of NaOH and acids in industrial processes (Anonymous
I, 1994). Another commercial product named Alkasave marketed by the same membrane-
producing company, is also claimed to be successful in reclaiming strong alkaline cleaners
from cleaning-in-place (CIP) streams in dairies and beverage plants (Anonymous II, 1995). It
consists of small membrane plants equipped with tubular alkali-stable membranes that can be
attached to the main NaOH tank (Figure 2.1). In this recovery system, caustic waste is
collected in a feed tank and pumped to the membrane unit. The membrane will constantly
remove dissolved and suspended organic contaminants from the caustic solution and the
purified caustic obtained in the permeate can be sent back to the main NaOH tank. To
maintain the flux, water is added to the recovery system feed tank in a diafiltration process.
The recovery of caustic soda will therefore result to the reduction of input concentrated caustic
solution in the industry. Experiments have proven that the Alkasave technology can be used to
regenerate caustic from deacidification columns, debittering columns and evaporators of the
juice industry.

Make up water Purified caustic (permeate)

Make up (48% NaOH)

Concentrated
NaOH to reuse
Membrane recovery system
NaOH Tank
2% NaOH
65°C
2-15 m3 Diafiltration water

CIP users
1.5 m3

Dilute NaOH to wastes Concentrate for discharge

6
 Figure 2.1 Integration of caustic soda recovery process ALKASAVE in dairies/beverages
Source: Asian Water and Sewage, Jul-Aug ‘95

2.3 Separation Processes in Membrane Technology

The principle for the different separation systems basically depends on the pore size
of the membrane and the size of the particle that is to be separated. The membrane
classification is based on size and molecular weight of particles that can be separated from the
entering stream Figure 2.2 clearly illustrates the pressure-driven solid-liquid separation
processes in MF, UF, NF and RO.

• ◊ ♠ ® ∅ Suspended particles
• ◊ ♠ ® ∅ ∅
Microfiltration • ◊ ♠ ® ∅
• ◊ ♠ ® Macromolecules
• ◊ ♠ ® ®
Ultrafiltration • ◊ ♠ ®
• ◊ ♠ Sugars
• ◊ ♠ ♠ Dissociated Acids
Nanofiltration • ◊ ♠ Divalent Salts
• ◊ Monovalent salts
• ◊ ◊ Acids
Reverse Osmosis • ◊
•
•
Water

Figure 2.2 Separation scheme for the different membrane systems

Microfiltration is mainly used for the separation of particles with size ranging from
about 0.5 to 10 µm. At a pressure of 1 bar, suspended particles are physically sieved out on
the surface of the membrane while water is allowed to pass through a network of pores by
convection (Weisner et al., 1992). One major drawback of MF is internal clogging of the
pores. Colloids can accumulate on the surface of the membrane between the pores. After
some time, aggregates of colloids completely block the membrane pores which can
significantly reduce the permeate flux. Backwashing of the membrane is one technique that
can be employed to remedy this situation.

7
 On the other hand, ultrafiltration and nanofiltration are often classified according to the
smallest molecular weight of material that has been found to be rejected by the membrane.
Typical UF membranes are made up of sheets of film which reject from water organics with a
molecular weight range of 1,000 to 80,000 (Hauck and Masoomian, 1990). The transfer
mechanism that UF employs are sieving and preferential adsorption through the membrane.
Solutions of macromolecules have very small osmotic pressures thus UF membranes do not
need to use high pressures to get a reasonable permeate flux (Pepper, 1981).

Nanofiltration, with separation characteristics falling between RO and UF has a

molecular weight cutoff (MWCO) range of 100-200 daltons. At pressures ranging between 6-
20 bar, the separation process involves two mechanisms: sieving and electrostatic interaction
(Roy, 1995). These multiple thin-film composites of polymers are porous and are capable of
sieving compounds with size greater than 2 nm. At the same time, due to the negatively-
charged active layer of most NF membranes (Raman et al., 1994) salt rejection can occur by
electrostatic repulsion. The MWCO which characterizes the membrane should merely be
considered as a rough indication of its ability to reject particular compounds because other
factors such as molecular shape and polarity also affect its removal efficiency (Weisner et al.,
1992).

Reverse osmosis is used for the production of pure water for domestic or industrial
uses. At pressures between 20-80 bar, the thin non-porous RO membrane with pore size
ranging from 3-1000° A, allows water to pass by diffusion while rejecting all other solutes.

2.3.1 Microfiltration and Nanofiltration Membranes

Commercially-available membranes have different configurations. It can be a flat sheet,

tubular element, hollow fiber, spiral wound or a plate and frame element. Each configuration
would cater to a different need in a particular process, depending on the feed water
characteristics.

Microfiltration has found much application in concentration of liquids, regeneration of

valuable process liquids, recovery of valuable by-products, etc. Some commercially available
microfilters made from organic polymers in various geometries are listed in Table 2.3
(Michaels, 1989). Table 2.4 also indicate the different microfilter materials and the
characteristics of chemicals they are compatible with.

Table 2.3 List of commercial crossflow microfilter polymeric materials and their geometries

MATERIAL GEOMETRIES
Pleated Tubular Spiral Hollow fiber Flat sheet
sheet Wound
Cellulosics
Polysulfone
Polyvinylidene flouride

8
 Acrylic
Polytetrafluoroethylene
Polybenzimadazole
Polypropylene
Nylon
Source: Michaels, 1989
There are basically two modes of operation for MF, namely: dead end and crossflow
microfiltration. Dead end filtration means that the feed flows perpendicularly to the
membrane. Solid particles may remain on the membrane surface and contribute to the
filtration process by retaining more solids in the feed water (Vigneswaran et al., 1991;
Yuanzhen, 1995). Blocking of the pores entails periodical cleaning of the microfilter to restore
its filtration efficiency.

In crossflow filtration, the feed flows tangentially to the membrane. This operation can
significantly reduce deposition of solids as the flow creates turbulence and additional shearing
force on the membrane surface. Hence, one major factor that influences microfiltration
efficiency is crossflow velocity (Vigneswaran et al., 1991). Deposits are easily washed out
when crossflow velocity is higher resulting to higher permeate flux.

Table 2.5 gives a description of the properties and performance of some commercially
available nanofilters (Raman et al, 1994). NF has found wide applications in the industry
including water softening, heavy metals recovery and cheese whey desalting.

There are several factors that affect the performance of NF membranes. These include
transmembrane pressure, feed concentration, temperature, feed pH, presence of competing
compounds and operation period (Roy, 1995). Flux and rejection increase as operating
pressure and temperature increase. When the feed is more concentrated, flux and retention
both tend to be high. NF membranes are also pH sensitive. At high feed pH, flux declines
more slowly while rejection of charged particles remains high. In the presence of competing
compounds, rejection by NF membrane will decrease. Fouling of the membrane as the
operation period increases leads to a flux decline.

2.3.2 Industrial Applications of MF and NF in Water and Wastewater Treatment

The early development of membrane technology was intended for applications in

biotechnology, food industries and chemical industries (Vigneswaran et al., 1991). As time
progressed, the technology has found wider applications in water and wastewater treatment.
Separation processes employing membrane technology have several advantages over
conventional methods. These are: mild operating conditions, no phase change, simplicity,
high selectivity and low energy requirements (Tzeng and Zall, 1990). Table 2.6 presents
distinguishing characteristics of different membrane systems currently used for wastewater
treatment.

Crossflow microfiltration has been extensively applied in water and wastewater

treatment. In the field of industrial water production, MF is vital in ultrapure water production
9
for the electronics industry, sterile water for pharmaceuticals, etc. (Vigneswaran et al., 1991).
MF is also profitable for treatment of wastewater from various industries such as pulp and
paper, textile and other biotechnological and agro-based industries.

10
 Table 2.4 Chemicals compatible with various commercially-available microfilter media

CHEMICALS COMPATIBLE MEDIA

other SHR S-316 other SCR
Ceramics Acrylics Carbon PBM poly-S PTFE poly-P PVF polymers alloys SS metals alloys
Allkanes, alkenes and
aromatic HCs, < 100oC
O2-containing organics,
< 100oC
Chlorinated organics,
< 100oC
Esters, < 100oC
Organics, at 100-200oC
Aquoeus solutions:
pH= 3 - 7, no chlorides
pH= 7-10, no chlorides
pH= 0 - 3 (except HF)
pH=3-10, with chlorides
pH= 10-13
pH>13
Steam (>100oC)
Oxidants (e.g. bleach)
Source: Michaels, 1989
Note:
PBM - polybenzimadazole PVF - polyvinylidene fluoride
poly-S - polysulfone SHR - sintered halide-resistant
PTFE - polytetrafluoroethylene S-312 ss - sintered 316- stainless steel
poly-P - polypropylene SCR - sintered chloride-resistant

11
 Table 2.5 Characteristics of various commercially-available nanofilters

Company H2 O NaCl NaCl MgSO4 MgSO4

Membrane Active
and Charge perm. conc. reject conc. reject
name layer
Location coeff. (%) (%) (%) (%)
DDS,Nakskob, HC50 n.d. n.d. 20.8 0.25 60 n.d. n.d.
Denmark
Desalin. Sys. Desal-5 n.d. n.d. 47.1 0.1 50 0.1 96
Escon.., CA
Film-Tec NF-40 PA neg. 25.0 0.2 45 0.2 97
(DOW) NF-70 PA neg. 72.0 0.2 70 0.2 98
Minneapolis XP-20 n.d. n.d. 50.0 0.2 25 0.2 75
XP-45 n.d. n.d. 30.7 0.2 75 0.2 98
MPW MPT-10 n.d. n.d. 29.3 0.2 63 n.d. n.d.
Rehovot, MPT-20 n.d. n.d. 50.0 0.2 18 n.d. n.d.
Israel MPT-30 n.d. n.d. 51.6 0.2 20 n.d. n.d.
Nitto- NTR-7250 PVA neg. 62.5 0.2 50 0.2 98
Denko NTR-7410 SPS neg. 500 0.5 10 0.5 9
Osaka, Japan NTR-7450 SPES neg. 92.0 0.5 50 0.5 32
Osmonics B-type TLC n.d. neg. 47.2 0.2 35 0.2 97
Minnetonka

Toray, SC-L100 CA neu. 31.3 0.2 75 0.2 97

Japan UTC-20HF PA neg. 94.7 0.2 66 0.2 99
UTC-60 PA amp. 47.3 0.1 85 0.2 99
UOP, San TFCS-4921 n.d. n.d. 340 0.05 85 n.d. 95
Diego, CA ROGA-4231 n.d. n.d. 330 0.2 75 n.d. 95
Source: Raman et al., 1994
Note: neg. - negative; neu.- neutral; amp.- amphoteric; H2O perm. coef. - water permeability coefficient;
CA- cellulose acetate; PA- polyamide; PVA- polyvinyl alcohol; SPS- sulfonated polysulfone;
SPES- sulfonated polyethersulfone; n.d. - no data

Similarly, NF has been proven useful for large-scale applications. In water treatment, NF
has been largely applied for demineralizing water. Compared with RO, NF can have lower
operating costs because of its lower operating pressure (Raman et al., 1994). NF can also be
employed in cleaning up contaminated groundwater. Tan and Sudak (1992) found that NF
membranes can extensively reduce the color of groundwater down to a color level of 3 color
units. No evidence of flux decline due to organic fouling was seen even after 14 days of
operation. In another study, Duranceau et al. (1992) proved that synthetic organic chemicals
such as chlordane, heptachlor and other pesticides added to potable water were completely
removed using a NF membrane softening process. Like MF, NF is put to use in treatment of
effluents from pulp and paper mills, food industries, metal industries, etc. (Raman et al., 1994).

A schematic diagram of a hybrid process of MF and NF for the recovery of NaOH from
the effluent produced during scouring of cotton fiber is presented in Figure 2.3. In the textile
industry, 10-20% NaOH solution is used to treat fabric which is then washed with water. After
the process, the scour effluent contains organics and dilute NaOH. This is neutralized by Cl2-
producing electrochemical cells wherein NaOH reacts and is converted to NaCl. The recovery
process starts with the clarification of the neutralized effluent by MF, removing all suspended
solids. Then, divalent salts, trace color and organics are removed by NF, while NaCl permeates
12
the membrane. Finally, the permeate passes through the electrochemical cell which regenerates
NaOH from NaCl.

Table 2.6 Membrane separation technologies for wastewater treatment @

FEATURE MF UF NF RO Electrodialysis
Suspended Solids Excellent Impractical Impractical Impractical N/A
removal
Dissolved organic N/A Excellent1 Excellent1 Excellent1 N/A
removal
VOC removal N/A Poor Fair1 Fair-good1 N/A
Dissolved N/A N/A Good Very good (90-
inorganic removal (function of 99% removal)
salt species)
Osmotic pressure None Minor Significant High None
effects
Concentration Up to 5% Up to 50% Up to 15%2 Up to 15% Up to 20%
capabilities total solids organics (ionic
concentration)
Permeate quality Excellent Excellent Good Excellent Good
Operating pressure 1-3 4-7 5-20 15-70 Function of
(bar) ionic
concentration
Capital costs 132-1,320 132-1,848 132-1,320 132-1,320 132-1,056
($/m3 -day)
Operating cost 132-1,056 132-792 198-792 264-792 132-264
($/1,000 m3 feed rate)
1 - Function of molecular weight N/A - not applicable
2 - Function of osmotic pressure
@
Modified from Cartwright, 1994

Recovered NaOH (10-20%)

Depleted
Water
(0.05% NaCl, pH 4-7)

Fabric Scour Scour wash

saturator range

Scour
H2
Chlorine
Neutralization
Neutralized
effluent Electrochemical
(pH 7.5- Organics and
membrane
8.5, 3-4% Organics polyvalent ions

Reducing agent NaOH

recycle loop
(when needed) MF NF

Figure 2.3 NaOH recovery from textile industrial effluents using MF-NF process
Source: Raman et al., 1994
2.4 Zero Liquid Discharge in Industries
13
 Problems with rising prices, droughts and increasingly stringent environmental regulations
have driven beverage industries to seriously consider programs for the reduction of water
consumption. Water use reduction and recycling of treated effluents can bring about considerable
cost savings in terms of reduced labor, maintenance, power and chemical costs (Herer, 1992). In
the United States, many manufacturing plants have benefited from water reuse which results to
lower water and sewer charges. This is often brought about by process modifications
implemented by the companies.

A facility called zero discharge is one systematic approach to water reuse (Byers, 1995). It
means that no wastewater gets discharged to a receiving surface water. This is the aim set by
manufacturing plants which consider that treatment and reuse of total plant effluent is more cost-
effective than to treat it for discharge (Rosain, 1993). Zero discharge will then eliminate the
reliance of a manufacturing plant on raw water. However, it has the following drawbacks:

• Scaling problems may occur due to the increase in salt concentration in water after several
cycles of reuse
• Trace elements in water are also built-up
• For recycling purposes, the wastewater may have to be treated unnecessarily beyond
effluent standards
• Loss of company’s right to get water available in their area
• Reduced plant reliability as operation is reconfigured to suit the new source of water

The general approaches to zero discharge can take many forms (Boffardi and Smith, 1995;
Mooney, 1992). Reduction and reuse of wastes may be achieved by a change in the production
technology and equipment for better process efficiencies or in-process recycling of potential
wastes. For example, a coal-fired power plant in an arid region in the United States has
successfully implemented a zero discharge program (Byers, 1995). By switching from a once-
through cooling system to a cooling tower with a recirculating system, the water intake demand
from the plant‘s water source was dramatically reduced.

On the other hand, Cappos (1995) claims that zero discharge is an intense process which
entails a series of filtering and purifying technologies to achieve discharge goals. Hence,
membrane technologies which are capable of doing this can play a big role in achieving zero
discharge. In the USA, a 500-megawatt Ocean State Power installation set up a zero discharge
facility after it was mandated by law not to discharge liquid stream from the site (Kiernan et al.,
1992). The company utilizes electrodialysis (EDR) membrane technology which removes
dissolved salts from the feed water as it flows across the surface of the membrane by electrically-
driven migration of ions. This system recovers water that is recycled back to the cooling tower.
Likewise, the EDR unit preconcentrates the wastewater solids prior to evaporation and
crystallization.

14
 CHAPTER 3

Background Information on the Research Site

3.1. Plant Location and Layout

The Pathumthani plant of the Thai Pure Drinks, Ltd. (TPDL), built in 1981, is considered
one of the largest softdrink manufacturing plants in Thailand. The plant is strategically located
near the Chao Phraya river (Figure 3.1) and has a total land area of 160 rai (64 acres). The plant
layout is given in Figure 3.2.

Nonthaburi - Pathumthani

Coca-Cola
Factory

Chao-Phraya River
Nonthaburi Pathumthani
Bridge Bridge

Rangsit Area

Bangkok - AIT

Figure 3.1. Location map of Thai Pure Drinks Ltd, Pathumthani Plant

3.2 Softdrink Production

3.2.1 Process Description

The general production process (Figure 3.3) may be described as follows: Simple syrup is
produced by dissolving refined sugar in treated water. Then, it is pasteurized at 85°C, filtered,
cooled and sterilized using ultraviolet light. The final syrup is prepared by mixing the simple
syrup with softdrink concentrate at definite proportions. Sufficient water is then added to dilute
the final syrup before it is refrigerated, carbonated and transferred to clean bottles or cans at
definite volumes. Finally, the containers are capped or sealed and then packaged for distribution.

14
 BIOLOGICAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT P LANT

RAW WATER
TREATMENT
P LANT

P RODUCTION LINE D2 BOILER 2

WATER
TREATMENT
BW-D2 P LANT D
P OST-MIX FINAL SIMPLE Scrubber 2
P RODUCTION SYRUP SYRUP
LINE P RODUCTION LINE D1 ROOM ROOM
WATER
REFRIGERATION
TREATMENT PLANT 2
BW-D1 P LANT C

RAW M ATERIALS R OOM OFFICES SUGAR

STORAGE
P RODUCTION LINE B ROOM
BW-B WATER FINAL SIMPLE
P RODUCT PET
STOCK TREATMENT SYRUP SYRUP BOTTLE
ROOM P RODUCTION LINE A P LANT AB ROOM ROOM STORAGE
ROOM
BW-A
PET
PET P RODUCTION LINE BOILER 1 REFRIGERATION BLOWING
SCRUBBER 1
P LANT 1 ROOM

P ARKING AREA

SALES BUILDING
CANTEEN

W AREHOUSE

TRAINING
CENTER
GATE

Figure 3.2 Plant layout of TPDL, Pathumthani Plant

15
Legend: 1 - delivery of returnable bottles 6 - bottle filling 11 - water treatment
2 - automatic uncasing 7 - bottle crowning 12 - refrigeration
3 - visual inspection of dirty bottles 8 - case packing 13 - proportionation
4 - bottle washing 9 - pallet loading 14 - carbonation
5 - empty bottle inspection 10 - case inspction 15 - syrup preparation

Figure 3.3. Process flow diagram of softdrinks production by TPDL

16
3.2.2 Production Schedule and Capacity

The plant equipped with 3,100 workers and six production lines can produce 200,000
cases of product daily, equivalent to about 1.344 million liters of softdrink for the central region
of Thailand. Lines A, B, D1 and D2 produce bottled softdrinks while the PET line and post-mix
line produce softdrinks in plastic containers and softdrink concentrates for vending machines,
respectively.

The monthly production of the plant for the year 1995 is shown in Figure 3.4.

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
JAN FEB M AR APR M AY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

M o nth

Figure 3.4 Monthly production of TPDL, Pathumthani for year 1995

The production profile clearly indicates that there is a seasonal demand for softdrinks.
Normally, the peak season comes during the hot summer months of March and April, while
lean season comes during the rainy months of September and October.

Regular operations of the plant are conducted from Monday to Saturday, from 8 a.m to
12 midnight. The plant operates only for 16 hours which are divided into two shifts per day, 8
to 4 p.m. and 4 p.m. to 12 midnight. Since production stops on Sundays and other national
holidays, the plant averages 300 working days annually. It is only during peak season that
shifts are extended and operations are continued until Sundays.

17
3.3 Water and Wastewater Sources and Treatment

3.3.1 Water Source and Treatment Process

The plant is equipped with water treatment systems to meet the various types of need in
their operations. Raw water drawn from underground sources is treated in several ways, to
produce pre-treated, soft and treated waters. A schematic diagram of the treatment system is
shown in Figure 3.5.

There are two existing systems of treating raw water to produce pre-treated water. In
System I, water pumped out of a well is chlorinated and passed through a tray tower packed with
large chunks of coke before it is cooled from about 49 to 36°C by a cooling tower. The cooled
water is then passed through a sand filter before it goes to a storage tank. System II follows the
same process except that the water pumped from the well does not pass through the tray tower but
goes straight to the cooling tower and sand filter before storage. This pre-treatment system
primarily removes undesirable gases such as H2S and CO2, reduces the temperature of the process
water and oxidizes iron and manganese which can affect the taste of beverages.

To produce soft water needed in boilers, bottle washers, etc., the pre-treated water is
passed through cation exchange columns which remove scale-causing divalent ions. The output
water of each of the twelve softener tanks are collected into a common distribution pipe that leads
to various unit processes. For precautionary measures, the input to boilers further goes through
an additional softener tank before it enters the unit. This ensures that the water used in steam
generation will not cause corrosion in the boiler or return system or form scale or other
deposits (Moore, 1989).

When the breakthrough point is reached - that is, when the total hardness of the exiting
water reaches 30 mg/L as CaCO3, the resin in each softener tank is regenerated with 10% NaCl
solution. The regeneration process starts with backwashing of the column to flush out any
impurities adhering to the resin. The column is then soaked thoroughly in brine solution
afterwhich it is rinsed-off. The backwash water which is loaded with calcium chloride is disposed
of as waste.

On the other hand, treated water is produced by further purification of the pre-treated
water. From the storage tank, it is sent to an accelator (or clariflocculator) where several
chemicals are added by in-line mixing. Chemicals such as calcium chloride, calcium hydroxide
for neutralization, precipitation and carbonate removal, calcium hypochlorite for disinfection
purposes and ferrous sulfate as flocculant are mixed with the influent to the clariflocculator. The
sludge formed is drained to a sedimentation pond while the clarified water is pumped through a
series of pressure filters of sand, activated carbon, filter bag and cartridge. The filter bag and
cartridge filter both serve the same purpose as final polishers that remove any color, taste or odor
from the treated water.

18
 Pre-Treatment Plant

Cl2
System I

Tray Tower
Raw Water

System II Storage Pre-Treated

Tank Water

Deep Well Cooling Tower Sand Filter

Chemical
Additives Softening Plant

Treated
Water Clariflocculator

Cartridge Filter Carbon Sand

Filter Bag Filter Filter
Sludge

Main Water Treatment Plant Soft Water

Figure 3.5 Process flow diagram for producing pre-treated, soft and treated waters.

19
3.3.2 Wastewater Treatment System

The plant is equipped with a biological wastewater treatment facility that handles all types
of wastewater generated from the water treatment plant and various other points in the factory. In
this system (Figure 3.6), raw sewage from the production lines first passes through a bar screen
and an oil and grease separator. The effluent is then discharged to a sump for pumping into the
anaerobic pond. Meanwhile, the backwash sludge water from the water treatment plants goes
through a sedimentation pond. The sludge is deposited into a sand drying bed while the filtrate is
separated onto the sump for pumping into the anaerobic lagoon for primary stabilization. The
stabilized effluent is then pumped into aerated ponds. After aeration, the wastewater is sent to a
settling pond, then to a maturation pond before it is finally discharged to Chao Phraya river.

The BOD, COD, oil and grease, and suspended solids removal in the wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) is regularly monitored. Table 3.1 gives the treatment efficiency of the system as
recorded during the month of March 1996. Data show that the biological WWTP can
satisfactorily meet the effluent standards at an estimated cost of 5.0 Baht/m3.

Table 3.1 Treatment efficiency of the biological WWTP*

Parameter Effluent Standards Influent Effluent % Removal

pH 5-9 9.66 8.38 ---
Suspended solids (mg/L) < 30 290.00 34.83 88
BOD (mg/L) < 20 770.00 10.03 99
Oil and Grease (mg/L) <5 6.20 0.88 86
TDS (mg/L) < 2, 000 --- 1,300.04 ---
COD (mg/L) < 60 1,382.52 60.65 96
* Average performance as recorded during the month of March 1996.

3.4 Bottle-Washing Process

3.4.1 Bottle Washer Operation

Dirty bottles returned to the plant are first uncased and conveyed to inspectors who
manually remove uncleanable and damaged bottles from the line. The remaining bottles are
sent to the bottle washing unit. Figure 3.7 illustrates a typical four-compartment bottle-washer.
Within the bottle washing equipment, the bottle washing process takes places in a series of
stages. First, the bottles are pre-rinsed by jetting with warm reclaimed water. Then, the dirty
bottles go through a series of soaking in compartments filled with caustic solution. The
number of caustic compartments vary from four in bottle washers A and B to six in bottle
washers D1 and D2. After the last caustic compartment, the bottles are soaked in a hot water
compartment which removes most of the caustic solution from bottles. Finally, the bottles are
rinsed in a three-stage mode, that is, secondary reclaim water rinsing, primary reclaim water
rinsing and fresh water rinsing. More details about the washing process specifications are
found in Appendix A. Machine specifications for these bottle washers are given in Table 3.2
and 3.3.

20
 Rainwater Drainage
Rainwater
Sump

R I V E R
Pond 2

Raw Sewage Pond 3B

Production Line
Pond 1

C H A O P H R A Y A
Pond 3A

Pond 5
Influent
Screen
Water
Treatment Effluent
Room Pond 4

Oil and
Grease Sump
Separator

Backwash
Sludge Water Sand
Sedimentation Pond Drying
Bed

Legend:
Pond No Type of Pond Volume capacity (m3) Hydraulic retention time (d)
1 Anaerobic Pond 46,000 10.0
2 Main Aerated Pond 19,040 4.1
3A Supplementary Aerated 20,672 4.5
3B Supplementary Aerated 20,448 4.4
4 Settling Pond 64,976 14.1
5 Maturation Pond 22,000 4.8

Figure 3.6 Wastewater treatment system of TPDL, Pathumthani Plant

21
Legend: A - Loading mechanism G - Two clamp safety M - Myrex or fresh water compartment
B - Horizontal prerinse H - Two rows of inside brushes N - Hot water heater
C - Bottle guards I - Final rinse O - Caustic compartments
D - Agitator J - Push-out finger P - Large manholes flush
E - Bottom brush K- inspection light Q - Large space for labels
F - Outside brushes L - Automatic unloading R - Steam heater
S - Drain pan

Figure 3.7 Diagrammatic view of a typical four-compartment bottle washer

Source: Jacobs, 1959

22
The bottles that come out of the bottle washers are further inspected before they can be filled
by the product.

It must be emphasized that these specifications for the soaking and rinsing processes,
proper temperature, caustic solution concentration and contact time must be carefully
observed in order to efficiently clean the bottles.

Table 3.2 Specifications of the soaking compartments of Bottle Washers A and B

Caustic Tank No. No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 TOTAL

3
Capacity of Caustic Tank (m ) 15 15 25 15 9 79
No. of Immersion Carriers 36 36 48 36 17 173
Temperature of Caustic (oC) 50 65 70 55~65 40~50 ---
Concentration of Caustic (%) 3 3 3 1.5 0 ---

Table 3.3 Specifications of the soaking compartments of Bottle Washers D1 and D2

Caustic Tank No. No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4,5 No. 6 No. 7 TOTAL
Capacity of Caustic 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.5 41.1
Tank (m3)
No. of Immersion 33 33 33 33 33 21 219
Carriers
Temperature of 50 65 65 65 55~65 40~50 ---
Caustic (oC)
Concentration of 3 3 3 3 3 0~0.1 ---
Caustic (%)

3.4.2 Caustic Cleaning Solution

In bottle-washing, caustic soda functions both as cleanser and an effective germicide.

In most bottle washing plants, it is considered more profitable to use caustic solution over
other available alkali mainly because it is cheaper and is less prone to thermal shock. As a hot
solution, it attacks glass and softens its surface. Thus, organic matter is dissolved, grease and
oil are emulsified and dirt is removed in suspension.

The factory uses a 32% NaOH stock solution for their bottle washing operations. The
monthly consumption of this solution in their bottle washers for the year 1995 is shown in
Figure 3.8. At the price of 4.60 Baht per kilo, the plant’s expenditure on caustic soda alone
reached 6.60 million Baht in 1995.

23
 The causticity of each soaking compartment is monitored twice every shift by the
quality control department. To adjust the caustic concentration according to specifications,
fresh caustic solution (32%) is added to deficient compartments. Caustic solutions are totally
drained out of the bottle washers only after the bottle washer reaches an operating time of
1,000 hours. This means that the caustic solution in the compartments is reused for a period of
1,000 hours.

Sometime in 1994, the plant attempted to recover the caustic solution upon draining by
passing the solution through a sand filter. This recovery system however was not successful as
the coloring substances in the solution were retained after filtration. After a few attempts, the
caustic recovery project was abandoned that same year.

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
JA N FEB M AR APR M AY JUN JUL A UG SEP OCT NOV DEC

M o nth

Figure 3.8. Monthly caustic soda (32% solution) consumption for the year 1995

24
 CHAPTER 4

Methodology

4.1 Caustic Solution Characterization

Weekly samplings were carried out to characterize the caustic soda used in the different
soaking compartments of bottle-washers in production lines A and B. Variations in the
characteristics of caustic soda solution (per compartment) as production time increased were
monitored until the caustic solution was totally drained out of bottle-washer A.

The characterization summary is shown in Table 4.1. All analyses were performed before
the pilot-scale studies began.

Table 4.1 Parameters measured for caustic solution characterization

PARAMETERS MEASURED UNIT METHOD/EQUIPMENT

pH ----- Milwaukee pH 200 portable meter
Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L standard method*
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/L standard method
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) mg/L closed reflux dichromate method
Apparent Color Hazen units NDH Lovibond Nesslerizer MK.3
Turbidity NTU HACH turbidimeter Model 2100A
Conductivity mS/cm TOA Conduct meter, Model CM-2A
NaOH concentration % (w/w) titrimetric
* SOURCE: Standard Methods, APHA, AWWA, WPCF, 1985

4.2 Pilot-scale Membrane Filtration of Caustic Waste

The potentials of MF and NF in recovering caustic soda was explored using MF and NF
pilot units. The caustic solution drained from the bottle washer was first passed through the MF
unit, then the MF permeate was used as feed to the NF pilot unit. In each pilot run, the
transmembrane pressure was varied and the corresponding permeate flux and quality were
evaluated. The parameters monitored during filtration for both systems are tabulated in Table 4.2.

4.2.1 Microfiltration of Caustic Waste

Figure 4.1 shows the MF pilot unit and its detailed flow diagram is schematized in Figure
4.2. The MEMTEC microfiltration unit is equipped with four modules of polypropylene hollow
fiber membranes with an area of 1 m2 each. The unit has a programmable logic controller (PLC)
system which enables it to indicate unit operating status at any instance. Other relevant
specifications of the MF pilot unit and its membrane element are found in Tables B1 and B2,
Appendix B.

25
 Table 4.2 Parameters monitored during operation of the membrane filtration pilot unit

PARAMETERS RANGE UNIT MEASUREMENT

METHOD
1. Feed
- NaOH concentration 3.11 - 3.70 % (w/w) NaOH titrimetric
- TDS 48.6 - 64.2 g/L standard method1
- Apparent Color 200 - 500 Hazen units standard method
- COD 8,606 - 9,848 mg/L standard method
- Conductivity 94 - 101 mS/cm standard method
2. Permeate
- NaOH concentration variable % NaOH titrimetric
- TDS variable mg/L standard method
- Apparent Color variable Hazen units standard method
- COD and Conductivity variable mg/L; mS/cm standard methods
3. Operating conditions
- applied pressure 0.75 - 17.0 bar2 pressure gauge
o
- feed temperature 30 - 31 C thermistor
- permeate flowrate variable L/h flowmeter
4. Membrane
- system MF / NF -- --
3
- configuration HF/ SW -- --
1
SOURCE: Standard Methods, APHA, AWWA, WPCF, 1985
2
1 bar = 101 kPa
3
HF/ SW - hollow fiber / spiral wound

Figure 4.1 MEMTEC Microfiltration pilot unit

26
 SP

MV4 FM2
FILTRATE

BREAK
TANK MV5 FILTRATE EXHAUST

60 L

MV6 FM1 MV2 P PG2

Return

PV1 PV2A
MV7 PV1A
Return drain
NRV3

FEED / PG1
DRAIN NRV2
MV3 S1 NRV1 MV1 P PG3
P
NRV4
PUMP
PV2
P1

Legend: FM - flow meter LS - level switch FV - float valve MV - manual valve

P - pump S - strainer SP - sampling port NRV - non--return valve
PG - pressure gauge SV - solenoid valve PV - pneumatic valve

Figure 4.2 Detailed flow diagram of the MEMTEC MF pilot unit

4.2.2 Nanofiltration of Caustic Waste

Figure 4.3 presents the NF pilot unit and its detailed flow diagram is illustrated in Figure
4.4. The membrane attached to the unit was MPS-34 manufactured by Membrane Products Kiryat
Weizmann, Ltd. (MPW). This spiral wound membrane element has a MWCO of 300 and can
operate within the pH range of 0 to 14. Other specifications of the nanofiltration pilot unit and
MPS-34 can be found in Tables B3 and B4, Appendix B.

4.2.3 Membrane System Design and Financial Analysis

Based on the optimum conditions for the MF/NF caustic recovery system and the needs of
the plant, a membrane system was designed for a large-scale installation. A financial analysis was
conducted using payback period and internal rate of return, which considered the total costs based
on current prices of materials and energy.

27
 Figure 4.3 Nanofiltration pilot unit, Model M204-SW
by Membrane Products, Kiryat Weizmann Ltd.

4.3. Investigation on Water Consumption and Wastewater Generation

Secondary data on water consumption and wastewater generation was collected from the
factory. Primary data was also collected to supplement some of the vital information needed to
complete the analysis.

4.3.1 Analysis of Bottle Washer Effluent Streams

The effluent streams of bottle washer B were characterized in terms of temperature, pH,
TDS, %NaOH, color, turbidity, conductivity, COD and suspended solids according to Standard
Methods (APHA, AWWA, JWPCF, 1985). After determining the flowrates of each stream, a
material balance around the bottle washer was drawn.

4.3.2 Water Quality Determination

The major types of water used in the plant were characterized in terms of pH, temperature,
color, total hardness, iron and manganese concentrations, SS and TDS according to standard
methods (APHA, AWWA, JWPCF, 1985). The information gained served as a supplement to
water quality parameters regularly monitored by the plant.

28
 F12
Permeate
Permeate Cooling Water
TCV P11
Return
F11

V8
BPCV
Heat Exchanger
V5
NF
Module
Feed
Cooling Tank
Water TI
strainer

PRV2

LLS
PL1
PRV1 V1
V3 V2
PI3 PD T1S PT1
TC T2 filter

P2 P1

V6 V7 V4

LEGEND:

PRV1, PRV2 - pressure relief valves P2 - feed pump PI1, PI3 - pressure indicators
BPCV - back press control valve PT1 - pressure transmitter TCV - temperature control valve
PL1 - pressure digital indicator TC - temperature controller PD - pulsation dampner
T2 - temperature sensorP1 - high pressure pump T1S - temperature high limit
V-1 - bypass valve TI - temperature indicator V-2 - module inlet valve
FI1 - concentrate flowmeter LLS - low level switch FI2 - permeate flowmeter
V8 - 3-way valve V3,V4, V5,V6, V7 - drain valves

Figure 4.4 Detailed flow diagram of the M204-SW nanofiltration pilot unit

4.3.3 Data Collection for Water Consumption and Wastewater Generation

Daily monitoring of water consumption and wastewater generation is conducted by the

factory. Data for the period of January 1995 to April 1996 was collected from the factory. From
these facts, the average daily rates of water consumption and wastewater generation were
determined to aid subsequent planning for water recovery strategies in the plant.

4.4 Proposals for Water Purification and Reuse in the Factory

With the aim to reduce raw water consumption and the liquid discharged from the factory,
other feasible technologies for water purification and recovery in the plant were taken into
consideration. The impact of each alternative was evaluated by drawing an overall water balance
for the whole factory and conducting a financial analysis for each.

29
 CHAPTER 5

Results and Discussion

5.1 Characterization of Caustic Solution

The trends in the variations of the characteristics of caustic soda solution (per
compartment) as the length of production time increases are shown in Figures 5.1 to 5.5. As
previously mentioned, the normal procedure in the plant is to check the caustic concentration
in each compartment every four hours and adjust it whenever necessary to meet specifications.
This practice is done without draining any solution for a period of about 1,000 production
hours. During the study, the caustic solution was totally drained out of bottle-washer A for
discharge to the WWTP only at the end of 1,312 production hours.

As time progresses, the caustic strength is expected to decline due to the following
reasons:

1. As bottles get soaked into the first compartment, carryover of pre-rinse water is expected
to dilute the caustic solution.

2. Chemical changes with caustic soda occur as shown by two major reactions (Jacobs,
1959):

a. Sodium hydroxide gets converted into sodium carbonate upon reaction with carbon
dioxide in the air:

2NaOH + CO2 → Na2CO3 + H2O (Equation 5.1)

b. Sodium hydroxide reacts with the acids, sugars and color adhering to the sides of the
used bottles and with various kinds of dirt and labels.

3. Depletion of caustic is also caused by carryover from bottles and moving parts to the hot
water soaking compartment.

4. There is eventual carryover of caustic from the last compartment to the final rinse.

5. Some degree of absorption may consume caustic when bottle carriers become scaled.

The pH of the caustic solution in any of the compartments (Figure 5.1) is extremely
alkaline, with values ranging from 13.5 -14.0. Theoretically, the 3% by weight (or 0.774M)
NaOH solution being used in the caustic compartments should have a pH of 13.89. Although
the pH should decline through time as caustic solution gets depleted in the compartments, the
periodic replenishment with 32% by weight NaOH to reach specified concentrations in each
compartment, maintained the pH at extremely high values.

30
 14.00
13.90
13.80
13.70
13.60

pH
13.50
13.40
13.30 Compartment 1
Compartment 2
13.20 Compartment 3
13.10 Compartment 4
13.00
295 383 471 1266 1312
Production time (h)

Figure 5.1 Behavior of pH against production time per soaking compartment

The total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, on the other hand, increases with
production time (Figure 5.2). TDS is quite high, ranging from 40 to 80 g/L whereas the
expected TDS of a 3% by weight of NaOH is only 31.5 g/L. This shows that other impurities
account for most of the TDS analyzed in the caustic solution. P-stabilon, a chelating agent that
serves as an anti-scale substance being added to the cleaning solution at a concentration of
0.25% by weight, also adds to the TDS measured. Complementary to this is the conductivity
behavior shown in Figure 5.3. Since NaOH is a strong base, it completely ionizes in water.
Therefore, the high concentration of dissolved ions would consequently exhibit a high
conductivity, at a range of about 80 to 120 mS/cm. A pure 3% caustic solution has a specific
conductivity of 134 mS/cm at 20°C (Weast, 1989).

80
70
60
50
TDS (g/L)

40
30
Compartment 1
20 Compartment 2
Compartment 3
10 Compartment 4

0
295 383 471 1266 1312
Production time (h)

Figure 5.2 TDS behavior against production time per soaking compartment

31
 120

100

Conductivity (mS/cm)
80

60

40
Compartment 1
Compartment 2
20 Compartment 3
Compartment 4
0
295 383 471 1266 1312
Production time (h)

Figure 5.3 Conductivity behavior against production time per soaking compartment

Similar to the TDS trend, COD also increases in each compartment with increasing
production time (Figure 5.4). This means that as caustic soda is used for longer periods in the
bottle washer, its strength as wastewater will also be higher. Currently, this strong caustic
waste goes directly to the factory’s biological WWTP. A serious implication of this practice is
the possible disruption of the biological conditions needed for a stable performance of the
treatment plant.

14,000

12,000

10,000
COD (mg/L)

8,000

6,000

4,000 Compartment 1
Compartment 2
2,000 Compartment 3
Compartment 4
0
295 383 471 1266 1312
Production time (h)

Figure 5.4 COD behavior against production time per soaking compartment.

On visual inspection, the caustic samples were light to dark brown in color and upon
measurement has an apparent color value ranging from 200 to 800 Hazen units. It also had
reasonable turbidity ranging from 4 to 37 NTU at various stages of the characterization period.
Figure 5.5 shows the profile of apparent color at increasing period of use of the caustic
solution in the four soaking compartments.

32
 900

Apparent Color (Hazen units)

800 Compartment 1
Compartment 2
700 Compartment 3
Compartment 4
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
295 383 471 1266 1312
Production time (h)

Figure 5.5 Apparent color profile against production time per compartment

On the otherhand, the samples obtained had very varied suspended solids content
ranging from 23 - 325 mg/L (Appendix C). This is a result of the bottle washing machines
being designed to collect at the bottom any settleable solids formed in the soaking
compartments. Too much suspended solids in the soaking compartments are much too
undesirable for the bottles. Thus, most of it such as straws, cigarette butts and the likes are
already washed-off during the pre-rinse.

Specifications of bottle washer A require that in Compartments 1, 2, and 3, caustic

solution must be 3%, while in Compartment 4, it must only be 1.5%. However, Table C4,
Appendix C shows that %NaOH in the last compartment exceed the specification level at
twice its value. The carry-over of caustic solution from the first three compartments during
operation therefore can imply a great loss of caustic in the process.

5.2 Microfiltration of Caustic Waste

The caustic sample used in the microfiltration pilot-scale runs was taken from the batch
which was drained out of bottle-washer A. A volume-proportional caustic sample prepared
from each compartment served as feed to the microfiltration unit. In this way, the effect of
having different soaking compartment volumes can be accounted for in the succeeding
analyses.

The performance of crossflow MF in improving the quality of the caustic waste was
evaluated at four pressure settings. The MEMTEC MF pilot unit was equipped with 0.2 µm
polypropylene hollow fiber (HF) membranes which trapped impurities in the feed on the
outside of the fiber while permeate passed through the membrane wall into the hollow center
of the fiber. The HF type (Figure 5.6) has several advantages over other membrane
geometries. It is made up of very thin capillary membranes which are bundled together at both
ends of a tubular casing, making it self-supporting (Vigneswaran et al., 1991). This

33
configuration results to high packing density and tolerance for concentrated and viscous
materials.

34
 FEED

FEED
PERMEATE

CONCENTRATE

FIBER BUNDLE PERMEATE

CONCENTRATE

Figure 5.6 A schematic of a hollow-fiber membrane

During the experimental run, a feed temperature control system was added to the unit
in which cooling water was automatically pumped into a cooling coil inside the feed tank
when feed temperature exceeded 30°C. To determine the flux at a specific pressure, a total
recycle configuration was followed wherein concentrate and permeate were simultaneously
put back into the feed tank. At a specific pressure, only a small amount of permeate was
withdrawn as sample for quality determination. With minimum variation in the feed
composition, permeate flux was expected to remain constant at each pressure setting.

The driving force in the separation of materials in microfiltration is the pressure across
the membrane or transmembrane pressure (TMP). A simplified diagram of this system (Figure
5.7) indicates that TMP defined as:

TMP = (P1 + P2) - P3 (Equation 5.2)

2

was set by controlling manual valves, V1 and V2 in the pilot unit.

The permeate flux and quality at each pressure were taken at steady-state, obtained
after 20 minutes run. After each run at a particular pressure, the MF unit was restored to its
original performance capacity by backwashing. High pressure air was automatically forced
from the center of the fibers back across the membrane. This expands the fiber and allows air
to remove rejected materials from the outside of the fiber (Appendix D). This also ensures that
the feed quality was maintained in all operating pressures throughout the pilot run.

34
 permeate
concentrate
Feed
Tank V2

P2
P1 QC P3
V1
QF QP

MF membrane
pump

Figure 5.7 Total recycle crossflow microfiltration system

The trend in the permeate flux as transmembrane pressure increases from 0.75 to 1.4
bar (75.75 to 141.4 kPa) is shown in Figure 5.8. Results showed that permeate flux is greater
at higher pressures, although flux increase was not proportional to the pressure difference. For
MF, membrane resistance is relatively low, such that greater than 500 L/m2-h-bar of pure
solvent flux is achievable (Noble and Stern, 1995). Hence, the permeate flux obtained for the
caustic waste within the studied pressure range was relatively high at 200 to 300 L/m2-h
considering that the feed is a concentrated alkaline solution with a suspended solids content of
46 mg/L.

There are four filtration mechanisms that explain the separation mechanism in
mirofiltration. These are: complete blocking, cake filtration, standard blocking and
intermediate blocking (Vigneswaran et al., 1991). Complete blocking occurs when particles
plug the capillaries while cake filtration takes place when a porous layer forms an additional
resistance on the surface of the membrane. When solids adhere to the walls of the capillaries,
reducing their internal diameter, standard blocking occurs in the absence of cake filtration.
Intermediate blocking transpires when the blocking rate falls between cake filtration and
standard blocking.

Characterization of the permeate obtained at each pressure revealed that the membrane
efficiently removed 100% of the suspended solids (Appendix E). This performance is
consistent with previous trial tests conducted with a 0.2 µm MEMTEC hollow fiber MF
system that satisfactorily removed suspended solids, bacteria and viruses, grease and oil, toxic
heavy metals and organochlorines from sewage (MEMTEC Limited as cited in Vigneswaran
et al., 1991).

Figure 5.9 presents the trend of COD removal and NaOH recovery at increasing
pressure. Results showed that at 1.0 bar, COD was significantly reduced by 26% whereas
85% of the NaOH was recovered in the permeate. Beyond 1.0 bar, no further COD reduction
35
was observed. Caustic soda recovery was also observed to decrease. This trend implies that
the membrane becomes more efficient in rejecting materials with size greater than 0.2 µm as
pressure is increased from 0.75 to 1.0 bar. However, increasing the pressure beyond 1.0 bar
does not improve the filtration efficiency further.

On the other hand, NaOH ions easily pass through the membrane because of its small
size thus, they can be recovered in the permeate. Yet, some of it were rejected by the
membrane. There are two possible reasons for this. First, as more solids are trapped outside
the fibers, the ions also get filtered by the charged layer formed outside the membrane by
other rejected solids. Second, studies have shown that toxic heavy metals and organochlorines
are typically contained within the suspended solids thus removed from the filtered effluent
(Vigneswaran et al., 1991). Hence, it can be presumed that caustic ions may have been
removed in this same way. At pressures greater than 1.0 bar, %NaOH of the permeate in this
study decreased.

350
Permeate flux (L/m -h)

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Transm em brane pressure (bar)

Figure 5.8 Permeate flux at increasing MF pressure

Since it is desirable to obtain a permeate with low COD but high %NaOH, it was
concluded that the optimum pressure setting to run the MF unit was at 1.0 bar (101 kPa) with a
flux of 235 L/m2-h.. At this optimum pressure, the rejection rate (R) for NaOH, expressed as:

R = 100 x (cF - cP)/cF (Equation 5.3)

is relatively low at 15%. This means 85% of the NaOH ions permeated through the membrane
and can possibly be recovered for reuse.

36
 100 100
90 90
80 80

% NaOH recovery
% COD reduction
70 70
60 % COD reduction 60
50 % NaOH recovery 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Transmembrane pressure (bar)

Figure 5.9 COD removal and NaOH recovery at increasing MF pressure

Analysis of the quality of permeate however, revealed that at any pressure, MF can
reduce the color by 60%, from 500 to 200 Hazen units (Figure 5.10). Laboratory filtration of
the feed using a 0.45 µm pore size filter exhibited a 30% color removal. This implies that a
large portion of the coloring materials were particles of size greater than 0.2 µm. The
permeate COD was also still high at about 7,300 mg/L. These figures indicate that soluble
organic contaminants are still retained in the aqueous caustic solution after mirofiltration.
Therefore, MF alone can not satisfactorily treat the caustic waste. Further treatment was
necessary, if the caustic waste were to be reused in the bottle washing units. Ho and Sirkar
(1992) recommend pre-treatment of the feed containing organic foulants by MF before passing
the stream through an NF membrane.

250 100
Apparent color (Hazen units)

90
200 80
% Color removal

70
150 60
50
100 40
Apparent color 30
50 %Color removal 20
10
0 0
0.75 1.00 1.20 1.39
Transmembrane pressure (bar)

Figure 5.10 Apparent color reduction by microfiltration

37
5.3 Nanofiltration of Microfiltration Permeate

The permeate obtained from microfiltration operated at 101 kPa was further treated by
nanofiltration. The M204-SW pilot unit used is designed for spiral wound or tubular
membrane testing and process development for both UF and RO processes. The performance
of MPS-34, a spiral wound NF membrane in treating the caustic waste was evaluated at four
different pressure settings varying from 8.0 to 17.0 bar (808 to 1,717 kPa).

The spiral wound element consists of two layers of flat sheet membranes with a feed
channel spacer, rolled around a product collection tube (Figure 5.11). The spiral wound
membrane configuration is most widely used in industry because it is compact, easy to replace
and less susceptible to fouling (Noble and Stern, 1995; Ho and Sirkar, 1992). The spacer
serves as a built-in mechanism to promote turbulence across membrane surfaces thus reducing
fouling and scaling potentials and facilitating cleaning (Byrne, 1995).

Product-water Collection Tube

Brine
Feed Stream Product Water

Feed Stream
Feed Channel Spacer
Membrane
Permeate Flow (after passage
through membrane into Feed-channel Spacer
product-water channel
Product-Water-Channel Spacer
Covering

Figure 5.11 Schematic diagram of a spiral wound membrane element

Source: Ho and Sirkar, 1992

In spiral wound modules, the feed stream enters through one end of the cylindrical
module along one side of the membrane sandwich. The permeate passes into the product
channel where it travels in a spiral until it reaches the center of the module and gets collected
in the product collection tube. The concentrate exits the module through the concentrate outlet
at the end of the module.

Separation by nanofiltration follows two mechanisms. First, neutral organic

compounds with molecular weights above the membrane MWCO get rejected by seiving
mechanism due to the very small pore size of the NF membrane. Second, anions get rejected
due to electrostatic repulsion with the common negatively-charged surface of the NF
membrane.

38
 The operational configuration used was the batch recycle system wherein the
concentrate was recycled back to the feed tank while the permeate flowrate was determined.
The permeate flux was observed to increase with pressure (Figure 5.12). The flux obtained
within 8-17 bar ranged from 5-24 L/m2-h. The flux value is expectedly low because of the
extremely high TDS content of the feed at 47,000 mg/L. Manufacturers of MPS-34 claim a
water flux of 60 L/m2-h at 30 bar and 30°C. Literatures reveal that at a transmembrane
pressure of 15 bar, a spiral wound NF membrane, UTC-20HR, manufactured by Toray, gave a
permeate flux of 102 L/m2-h for a feed containing 1,500 mg/L NaCl. On the other hand, for a
feed which contains 35,000 mg/L of NaCl, MPT-20, a tubular module by MPW gave a
permeate flux of 42.5 L/m2-h at a pressure of 25 bar (Ho and Sirkar, 1992). It can be inferred
from the performance of these other commercial membranes that MPS-34 gave a reasonable
permeate flux given the characteristics of the caustic feed and the operating conditions
employed in this study.
25

20
Permeate flux (L/m2-h)

15

10

0
8.0 11.0 14.0 17.0
Transmembrane pressure (bar)

Figure 5.12 Permeate flux at increasing NF pressure

Analysis of the permeate quality showed high reductions in COD and apparent color
resulting to a better quality caustic solution (Appendix E). About 70 to 80% was achieved in
COD reduction (Figure 5.13). This is comparable to the performance of the Alkasave
technology described in Section 2.2 which claims a COD reduction of 80% (Anonymous II,
1995). In this study, MPS-34 was able to reduce a high feed value of 8,606 mg/L COD to
about 1,500 mg/L at 14-17 bar. Despite the high reductions however, it was apparent that
impurities with molecular weights lower than 300 still remained in the permeate because the
COD of a pure 3% (w/w) aqueous NaOH solution with 0.25% (w/w) P-stabilon additive was
found to be 860 mg/L only.

The NF study also registered a 97.5% reduction of the apparent color from the feed at
pressures 11.0 bar and higher (Figure 5.14). It can be deduced that the colored impurities
easily rejected from the caustic were organic materials with molecular weights higher than
300. Samples of the streams taken after MF and NF treatment (Figure 5.15) exhibited great
improvement in the appearance of the caustic solution obtained in the permeate.

39
 3,000 100
90
2,500

Permeate COD (mg/L)

80

%COD reduction
70
2,000
60
1,500 50
Permeate COD
% COD reduction
40
1,000
30
20
500
10
0 0
8.0 11.0 14.0 17.0
Transmembrane pressure (bar)

Figure 5. 13 COD reduction after nanofiltration at diffent pressures

Figure 5.14 also presents the rate of caustic recovery in the permeate at each
transmembrane pressure. Results show that there was no significant difference in the solute
recovery as the NF process was operated from 11 to 17 bar. The recovery rate ranging
between 88 to 91% implies a rejection range of 12 to 9 % for NaOH. According to the
manufacturers, MPS-34 has a rated rejection rate of 35% for a 5% NaCl feed when operated
at conditions of 30°C and 30 bar.

100 100
90 90
80 80

% NaOH recovery
% Color removal

70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
% Color removal
30 30
% NaOH recovery
20 20
10 10
0 0
8.0 11.0 14.0 17.0
Transmembrane pressure (bar)

Figure 5.14 Color reduction and NaOH recovery at different NF pressures

From these results, it can be concluded that the optimum transmembrane pressure for
the NF operation is 14 bar (1,414 kPa) since at this pressure setting, both COD reduction and
color removal were relatively high. The membrane also exhibited a relatively good permeate
flux of 15 L/m2-h and satisfactory recovery rate of NaOH at 91% was achieved.

40
 Figure 5.15 Appearance of caustic solution after MF and NF filtration

To sum up, Figure 5.16 compares the treatment efficiencies of MF and NF at the
optimum pressures of 101 kPa and 1,414 kPa respectively.

100
90 MF NF
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

% COD % Color % NaOH

reduction reduction recovery

Figure 5. 16 Treatment efficiencies of MF and NF at the optimum pressure

41
5.4 Membrane System Design for Caustic Recovery

The success in operating a membrane system for a specific application in the industry
is heavily dependent on the knowledge about feed and membrane interactions. Whatever
available information often comes only from membrane manufacturers themselves or from
membrane equipment contractors. Thus, the pilot-scale testing for caustic recovery would be
essential in designing a system to fit the exact need of the plant. Scale-up from tests carried
out on pilot scale equipment is relatively straightforward because of the modular nature of the
membrane plant (Noble and Stern, 1995).

5.4.1 Caustic Consumption in the Plant

Data for the consumption of 32% caustic solution in the plant as illustrated in Figure
3.6 gave an average rate of 119,434.2 kg (or 88.47 m3) usage per month. This value records
the total amount of caustic used for:

1. the fresh caustic solutions placed in the soaking compartments of the four bottle
washers after periodical draining;
2. caustic solution for post-mix container washing; and
3. daily adjustment of concentration in the soaking compartments of all bottle washers.

Upon analysis of the caustic consumption rates for each purpose mentioned above
(Appendix F), it was found that the plant uses up a total of 4,289 kg/day of 32% caustic
solution in replenishing the caustic compartments of the four bottle washers. This implies that
about 23% by weight of the total caustic solution in the bottle washers are lost from the system
everyday for reasons enumerated in Section 5.1. The loss of caustic from the system was
investigated further and a material balance around bottle washer B was drawn (Figure 5.17).

Soft water is supplied for rinsing at the rate of 427 m3 /day. As described in Chapter 3,
this final rinse water is reclaimed twice in the final rinse compartment. A part of the final rinse
is then sent to the pre-rinse section where it is discharged as a highly organic wastewater while
the rest of it is drained to the WWTP. In the larger bottle washers, A or B, the amount of 32%
caustic solution added averages 1,352 kg/day, equivalent to 432 kg of pure caustic. Since the
32% caustic stock solution has a density of 1.35 kg/L, then the volume of caustic solution for
daily replenishment is approximately 1 m3. The pre-rinse effluent was discharged at the rate of
143 m3/day. Analysis of this exiting stream showed that it contains 0.640 kg/m3 of caustic
soda and 3.584 kg/m3 of TDS. The hot water soaking compartment which is drained at 9 m3
daily after shutdown was found to contain 1.280 kg/m3 of caustic soda and a TDS
concentration of 2.572 kg/m3. By material balance (Equation 5.4), the discharge rate of the
final rinse effluent to the underdrain is 276 m3 /day. This waste stream was analyzed to have a
caustic concentration of 0.72 kg/m3 and a TDS of 1.832 kg/m3. These figures were used in
deriving some mass balance equations primarily to account for the magnitude of caustic
drained out of the bottle washing unit.

42
Overall Balance:
QR + QF = QP + QD + Q5 (Equation 5.4)
QD = QR + QF - QP - Q5
QD = 1.0 + 427 - 143 - 9 = 276 m3/d

where, QR - flowrate of caustic solution for replenishment (m3/d);

QF - flowrate of final rinse water (m3/d );
QP - flowrate of pre-rinse effluent (m3/d );
QD - flowrate of drained final rinse (m3/d ); and
Q5 - flowrate of last compartment (m3/d).

From the NaOH concentration determined for each stream, the amount of caustic that is
lost from chemical reactions can be calculated as given in Equation 5.5. Calculation shows
that of the 432 kg of NaOH added daily for concentration adjustment, 30% or 130 kg is
depleted due to chemical reactions while 70% or 302 kg is carried over to the rinsing process
and is eventually drained out of the bottle washer.

NaOH Balance:

QR CR, NaOH + QF CF, NaOH = QP CP, NaOH + QD CD, NaOH + Q5 C5, NaOH + RL (Equation 5.5)

RL = QR CR, NaOH + QF CF, NaOH - (QP CP, NaOH + QD CD, NaOH + Q5 C5, NaOH)

RL = 1.0 x 432 + 427 x 0 - (143 x 0.64 + 276 x 0.72 + 9 x 1.28) = 130 kg/d

where, RL - rate of caustic reaction losses (kg/d).

The TDS generated from the dirty bottles can be determined by making a TDS balance
around the bottle washer. From Equation 5.6, it was computed that overall, 261 kg of TDS was
generated daily and goes to the exiting streams around the bottle washer. This amount of TDS
can be accounted as the soluble impurities contributed by the bottles being washed and
carryover of additive (P-stabilon) to the rinse streams.

TDS Balance:

QR CR, TDS + QF CF, TDS + SG = QP CP, TDS + QD CD, TDS + Q5 C5, TDS (Equation 5.6)

SG = QP CP, TDS + QD CD, TDS + Q5 C5, TDS - (QR CR, TDS + QF CF, TDS)

SG = 143 x 3.584 + 276 x 1.832 + 9 x 2.572- (1.0 x 432 + 427 x 0.816) = 261 kg/d

where, SG - dissolved solids generation rate (kg/d)

43
 QR = 1.0 m3/d
CR, NaOH = 432 kg/ m3

1 2 3 4 5
PRE- FINAL
C = 30 g/L C = 30 g/L C = 30 g/L C = 15 g/L C = 0 g/L
QP = 143 m3/d RINSE RINSE QF = 427 m3/d Soft Water
V = 15 m3 V = 15 m3 V = 215 m3 V = 15 m3 V = 9 m3
CP, NaOH = 0.64 kg/m3 CF, NaOH = 0
CP, TDS = 3.584 kg/m3 CF, TDS = 0. 816 kg/ m3

Q5 = 9 m3/d
C5, NaOH = 1.280 kg/m3
C5, TDS = 2.572 kg/m3

QD = 276 m3/d
CD, NaOH = 0.72 kg/m3
CD, TDS = 1.832 kg/m3

Figure 5.17 Material balance around Bottle Washer B

44
 The production lines with bottle-washers operate at an average rate of 334 hours per
month. Of the two 8-hour shifts per day (16 h/day ), the actual production time is only 13
h/day. Actually, about 3 h/day is spent for daily sanitation practices and preparation of the
lines when flavors have to be changed within the production period. Given this information, it
can be deduced that the frequency for draining each bottle washer is four times per year since
total draining of the caustic compartments is carried out every after 1,000 production hours.
The draining schedule is always synchronized such that only one bottle washer is totally
drained at a time. When the caustic compartments are drained, the whole production line stops
for four to five days. This five-day idle period gives enough time for conducting standard
maintenance procedures for the whole production line. The schematic of the operation for the
caustic requiring units in the plant is given in Figure 5.18.

Caustic Soda
(32% w/w)

Soft Water Steam

Bottle Bottle Bottle Bottle Post-mix

Washer A Washer B Washer D2 Washer D1 Washer

to WWTP

Figure 5.18 Present scheme of caustic use in the plant

5.4.2 Membrane Recovery System

The following section describes the major considerations for the large-scale membrane
installation for caustic soda recovery. The proposed design is based on the assumption that the
membrane system that will be installed for caustic recovery will handle the drained caustic
waste of one bottle washer at a time. The schematic for the proposed membrane system
operated as a batch process is presented in Figure 5.19.

The design basis for the capacity of the membrane system is the recovery of caustic
from the bigger bottle washers in the plant such as bottle washer A or B. This bottle washing
unit periodically drains a total of 70 m3 of caustic waste from its four caustic soaking
compartments. If the bulk were to be processed within five days, the feed rate for the system
should be 1 m3 /h. In this way, the system can be operated for 24 hours beginning on the third
day of the maintenance week, and the NF permeate obtained can be continuously pumped
straight to the bottle washer compartments for reuse.

45
 As the caustic waste is drained from the bottle washer, it will be collected in a feed
tank. This is the same feed tank used for the caustic recovery attempted in the past by sand
filtration. From the feed tank it will be pumped to the MF unit through a cartridge filter.
Assuming a permeate yield of 85% at 101 kPa, the MF unit will require a membrane surface
area of 4 m2. Thus, the MF unit will comprise four discrete modules of 0.2 µm hollow fiber
membranes, each having a surface area of 1 m2. Periodic backflushing of the MF unit with
compressed air will be automatically started every 15-20 minutes for a period of 100-200
seconds. The backwash stream must be directed to the WWTP. Since caustic soda acts as a
detergent and germicide, chemical cleaning of the membranes is considered unnecessary.

BW-1

BW-2 1 m3 /h MF MF Product
Caustic Waste
tank system tank
BW-3 Feed
Cartridge
pump
filter
Concentrate Concentrate
BW-4 drain to WWTP drain to WWTP

Feed
recycling to bottle washers
puimp

0.6375 m3 /h NF 0.85 m3 /h
Recovered
system
caustic tank
Feed Booster
pump pump Cartridge
filter
to MF
product tank

Figure 5.19 Caustic recovery system design schematic

The permeate collected in a MF permeate tank will then be fed to a cartridge filter
before it is boosted at a pressure of 1,414 kPa as it enters the NF unit at the rate of 0.85 m3 /h.
With a permeate yield of 75%, the permeate flowrate will be 0.6375 m3 /h, with a solute
recovery of 90%. The nanofiltered caustic will be piped away into a NF permeate tank, ready
for reuse. The NF concentrate will have to be directed back to the MF permeate tank where it
will eventually get drained from. At a flux of 15 L/m2-h, the required membrane surface area
for the NF unit is 42.5 m2. The industrial size for MPS-34 membrane element is available with
a surface area of 6.2 m2, hence, seven modules of 40”x40” elements are needed for the NF
unit. The pressure vessels suitable for this type of application should be stainless steel
housings to withstand high alkalinity and pressures.

Since the system requires a small flow, pipes of small diameter which can be easily
bent and fitted to the system design during construction are appropriate. For the required
flowrate of 1 m3/h, pipes with inside diameter of 1.905 cm (0.75 in) will suit the purpose
(Byrne, 1995). The maximum crossflow velocity in the recovery system will then be 0.98 m/s.

46
 The recommended membrane installation, therefore, will have the following equipment
specifications:

Table 5. 1 Major components of the membrane system design

Feed pumps
Type Horizontal multistage centrifugal pumps
Model Groundfos CHI2-40
Capacity / Head 1 - 3 m3/h / 40 m
Power consumption 0.6 hp; 0. 45 kW
Quantity 3 pcs
Cartridge filter before MF unit
Pore size 500 microns
Material polypropylene
Quantity 1 set filter with housing; replaceable quarterly
Microfiltration membrane element
Quanitity 4 modules of 1 m2 each
Material polypropylene
Working pressure 101 - 202 kPa (1- 2 bar)
Pore size 0.2 microns
Temperature / pH tolerance 5 - 40 °C / 2-14
Air compressor
Quantity 1 set
Type PT-21
Maximum pressure 10 kg/cm2
Power consumption 0.75 kW; 1 hp
Feed/Permeate tanks
Quantity 2 units
Capacity 1 m3
Material polypropylene
Nanofiltration membrane element
Quanitity seven modules of 6.2 m2 surface area each
Model / MWCO MPS-34 / 300
Configuration spiral wound
Temperature / pH tolerance 45°C / 0-14
Pressure vessel stainless steel housing
High pressure pump
Type Vertical multistage centrifugal pumps
Model Groundfos CRN2-180
Capacity 1 - 3 m3/h
Head 170 m
Power consumption 3 hp; 2.2 kW
Quantity one piece
Cartridge before NF unit
Pore size 5 microns
Material polypropylene
Quantity 1 set filter with housing; replaceable quarterly

47
5.5 Financial Analysis of the Membrane Installation

5.5.1 Projected Savings

When the membrane recovery system is in place, it will work as a batch process for
each of the bottle washers four times per year. Since the assumed overall permeate yield is
63.75% and the evaluated solute recovery rate for the whole system is 77%, then from a 3%
caustic solution, a purified solution with 2.3% caustic will be recovered from the MF-NF
system. Table 5.2 gives the savings for the recovered caustic from each bottle washer, which
amounts to 183,890 Baht per year. Since the volume of the caustic waste is very small, the
savings on wastewater treatment cost is considered insignificant.

Table 5.2 Value of recoverable caustic from the four Bottle washers

SOURCE Volume of Volume of NF NaOH2 No. of Equiv. mass as Value of recovered3

OF FEED caustic permeate/run1 concentration recovery 32% (w/w) soln. NaOH as 32% soln.
3
(m ) (m3) (kg/m3) runs/ year (kg/y) (Baht/year)
BW-A 70 44.6 23.55 4 13,129 60,393.40
BW-B 70 44.6 23.55 4 13,129 60,393.40
BW-D1 36.6 23.3 23.55 4 6,859 31,551.40
BW-D2 36.6 23.3 23.55 4 6,859 31,551.40
TOTAL 213.2 135.8 -- 16 39,976 183,889.60
1
Overall permeate recovered from MF/NF system = 63.8% by volume
2
NaOH concentration by weight = 2.3%
3
Cost of 1 kg 32% (w/w) NaOH solution = 4.60 Baht

5.5.2 Payback Period and Internal Rate of Return

The summary of the pertinent costs for the membrane installation is presented in Table
5.3. Equipment and operating cost details can be found in Appendix G. Financial analysis
shows that the payback period for installing the large-scale membrane system for caustic
recovery is seven years and the internal rate of return (IRR) is 13.7%, with a net present value
(NPV) of 120,800 Baht.

These values indicate that the membrane system is an expensive installation that brings
little returns for the plant. This means that recovering caustic soda by membrane filtration is
not a viable solution in this situation, primarily because the system will be underutilized,
operating only for 853 h/yr for the four bottle washers.

Table 5.3 Financial analysis of the MF/NF recovery system

48
INSTALLATION COST1 490,060 Baht2
Microfiltration unit - 57,195 Baht
Nanofiltration unit - 261,345 Baht
DEPRECIATION COST3 40,389 Baht/yr
Useful life - 12 yrs
Salvage value - nil
OPERATING COSTS 72,556 Baht/yr
Power - 6,023 Baht/yr
Membrane replacement cost 4 - 63,333 Baht/yr
Cartridge replacement cost - 3,200 Baht/yr
NET ANNUAL SAVINGS 70,081 Baht/yr
NET PRESENT VALUE 120,800 Baht
PAYBACK PERIOD (Installation cost/Net annual savings) 7 years
INTERNAL RATE of RETURN 13.7 %
1
Piping, framework and controls is 35% of the total installation cost
2
25 Baht = 1 US$
3
Using straight-line basis on 12 yr useful life
4
Membranes replaceable every three years

5.6 Demand for Water in the Plant

As described in Chapter 3, groundwater undergoes different treatment systems to meet

three types of process water in the plant. The characteristics of each type (Table 5.4) reveal
that the conventional water treatment system of the plant is performing satisfactorily in terms
of removing undesirable substances such as Fe, Mn, carbonates, etc. from the groundwater
source. In the absence of municipal water supply, a deep well source most easily satisfies good
water quality factors of safety, temperature, appearance, taste, and odor (Davis and
Cornwell,1991).

Table 5.4 Characteristics of different types of process water available in the plant

RAW PRE-TREATED SOFT TREATED

PARAMETERS
WATER WATER WATER WATER
pH 7.81 7.97 8.0-9.0 9.0 - 9.5
Temperature (°C) 37-49 28-30 28-30 28-30
Apparent Color (Hazen units) <5 <5 <5 <5
Fe (mg/L) 6.62 1.93 n.d. n.d.
Mn (mg/L) n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
Turbidity (NTU) 0.90 1.40 1.35 0.90
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 656 642 816 636
Total Hardness (mg/L CaCO3) 150-155 75-80 0-30 <100
Chlorine content (mg/L) --- --- 3.0-4.0 0

49
 For the purpose of monitoring the plant’s demand for water, 25 water meters have
been installed along each major stream around the plant. These meters are read daily and
records are compiled on a monthly basis so that they can serve as indicator of possible water
losses or irregularities in the processing lines. Considering the fluctuations in the production
rate of the plant over the year and the consequent variation in the amount of water consumed,
the daily consumption rate was taken as the average values over a one-year period. For each
metered stream, the basis is the May 1995 to April 1996 records, unless otherwise specified.

5.6.1 Raw water consumption

The sole source of water for all plant operations is groundwater drawn from four
deepwell facilities inside the plant. The plant does not have any city water supplement for
their needs. Groundwater is treated prior to consumption for any purpose inside the factory.
Results of the monthly monitoring of volume drawn are shown in Table H1 in Appendix H.
Based on these figures, the average volume of raw water drawn daily is 5,598 m3 /day. The
government currently charges the plant 3.75 Baht per cubic meter of groundwater. This
translates to a daily cost of 20,992 Baht/day for raw water alone. Consumption values indicate
that one liter of beverage produced requires 5.08 liters of raw water.

5.6.2 Pre-treated water consumption

The raw water drawn at an average rate of 5,598 m3 /day is processed to produce pre-
treated water. The pre-treated type of water is used for operations which are not directly
connected to softdrink production. Table H2 in Appendix H is a record of the monthly
consumption of pre-treated water in the plant for May 1995 to April 1996. Water used for
cleaning trucks and delivery vehicles recorded by the plant as “fleet maintenance” and “park
used” is used at an average rate of 123 m3 /day. Water used for wet scrubbers (“dust-1” and
“dust-2”) that serve as air pollution control devices for boilers, is normally supplied
continuously while boilers are in operation. Therefore in Table H2, the absence of values for
the month merely indicate that either the meter is not working or the meter was not read for
that period.

To get a more reasonable water consumption rate of the scrubbers, first, the average
daily input water was determined from existing records for scrubbers 1 and 2. From the June
and December, 1995 and March and April, 1996 figures, this averages 8.61 m3 /day. Then, by
assuming this value for those months where significant boiler feedwater consumption has been
recorded, the average amount of pre-treated water supplied for both scrubbers is 10 m3/day.

The average consumption of water for backwashing softeners during regeneration of

the resin (recorded as “backwash”) is 338 m3 /day. This value had to be taken from the
January to December 1995 records because data for February and April 1996 are missing.
Likewise, the water for manual cleaning of dirty bottles and cases (recorded as “stock
washing”) which averages 117 m3 /day is based on the April 1995-March 1996 records
because the April 1996 figure is unusually low. This water is used when workers manually
check the returned bottles and cases, and separate the damaged and uncleanable ones from the
line. The training center also uses up pre-treated water at an average rate of 22 m3 /day. This

50
center regularly accommodates people trained by the sales department. The plant’s canteen
also consumes pre-treated water at the rate of 21 m3 /day. This source is made potable by
passing it though additional units of one softener and one activated carbon filter before it is
used for cooking and drinking purposes.

Pre-treated water is also used for cleaning floors of production areas. In Line D, a water
meter was recently installed and records an average daily consumption of 49 m3/day. Other
uses for pre-treated water includes water for cleaning floors of other production lines, toilets,
machines, watering of surrounding grounds, etc. The consumption rate for such miscellaneous
usage can merely be estimated by considering all other consumption rates obtained from
actual metered process water streams, and possible losses in each treatment system. By
material balance, it was determined that the pre-treated water consumed for “other” purposes
is 1,071 m3/day.

5.6.3 Soft water consumption

The monthly consumption of soft water for different purposes are tabulated in Table
H3, Appendix H. Lines D1 and D2 require soft water to dissolve the lubricant used for the
conveyors in the line. The average daily consumption for this purpose is 40 m3 /day. Likewise,
the PET line uses up 35 m3 /day to lubricate its line and rinse PET bottles before filling. On the
other hand, post-mix container washing consumes 96 m3 /day of soft water. In the
refrigeration plants, cooling water is used in hot compressors at the rate of 307 m3 /day while
boilers use up an average amount of 68 m3 /day. Soft water for bottle washers are mainly used
for daily replacement of water in the hot water soaking compartment of each washer and as
steady supply for final rinse. The four bottle washing units use up an average of 1,708 m3 /day.
Overall, the average ratio of soft water consumption to beverage production is 2.05.

5.6.4 Treated water consumption

The average consumption for treated water is 1,226 m3/day. Most of this is converted
to end product at an average daily rate of 1,101 m3 /day. This indicates that for every liter of
beverage produced, 1.11 liters of treated water is required. Treated water is also consumed at
the rate of 125 m3 /day for other purposes such as washing of syrup tanks and other equipment
in the production lines (pipelines for different flavorings); supply in taps of quality control
laboratories and drinking water for all workers.

In the above discussion, the amount of water input to each unit process within the plant
was determined from the daily meter readings. In Figure 5.20, the overall water balance is
shown. Assumptions were made regarding the losses of water incurred in each water treatment
system. According to Davis and Cornwell (1991) about 3% of the treatment plant flow is used
for filter backwash. Therefore, in producing treated water, 5% of the input was assumed lost in
filter backwashing and clarification. Likewise, 5% of the input water is lost in pre-treated
water production due to evaporation and periodical backwashing of the filters. In the softening
plant, the assumption made was that at least 1% of the input water is lost for preparation of the

51
 49 m3/d
Line D Cleaning
3
123 m /d
Cleaning of vehicles
3
10 m /d
Wet scrubbers
3 3 3 3
5, 598 m /d PRE-TREATMENT 5,318 m /d 1,751 m /d 22 m /d
RAW WATER Training Center
PLANT
21 m3/d
3 Canteen
280 m3/d Backwash water
3,567 m /d
3
(losses) 338 m /d
Softener Backwashing
3
117 m /d
3 Manual stock washing
WATER 1,290 m3/d 2,277 m /d
3
TREATMENT 1,071 m /d
PLANT Others - toilets and
floor cleanings, etc.

SOFTENING 40 m3/d
Backwash water Lubrication of Line D
(losses) PLANT
3
96 m /d
3 Regeneration Solution Post-mix line
64 m /d
(losses) 3
35 m /d
PET Line
23 m /d 3 2,254 m3/d
3
68 m /d
Boilers
3
1,101 m3/d 307 m /d
Product Cooling Water
3
3
125 m /d 1,708 m /d
Cleaning; Drinking; Bottle-washers

Figure 5.20 Overall water usage balance in the plant

50
regeneration solution. Therefore, out of the total raw water drawn from the deepwells, 31.3%
is consumed as pre-treated process water, 21.9% as treated water and 40.3% as soft water. The
rest is assumed lost in the treatment processes.

5.7 Rate of Wastewater Generation

As described in Chapter 3, the plant has its own biological wastewater treatment plant
that handles the wastewater generated from the production lines and the backwash sludge
water generated from the water treatment plants. There are two influent pipes with installed
flowmeters that measure the flowrate of the influent as it is pumped from a water sump to the
anaerobic pond. A flowmeter attached to a computer records the flowrate every hour. The
daily records obtained for the period April 1995 to March 1996 are tabulated in Table I1
Appendix I. Since August 1995, the plant began taking the daily meter reading manually as
well. The values obtained from the two methods vary significantly (Table I2, Appendix I). For
the purpose of this research, the average volume of influent to the WWTP was taken as the
average of the two measurements from April 1995 to March 1996. In months where manual
meter readings were available, these values were preferably used on the assumption that this
method was more reliable. Therefore, according to flowmeter readings, the average amount of
influent handled by the wastewater treatment plant is 4,298 m3/day.

In the Section 5.6, the amount of input water to various unit processes was discussed.
The average daily amount of wastewater generated by the plant can be deduced from these
values (Figure 5.21). The highest demand for pre-treated water is for “other” uses such as
domestic usage, machine washing, and cleaning of the surrounding areas outside the buildings.
The sewage from toilets are drained separately and does not go to the biological WWTP. At an
estimated consumption rate of 70 L/day for toilet per person, the plant uses 217 m3/day of pre-
treated water for this purpose. This implies that of the 1,071 m3/day used for “other” purposes,
only 854 m3/day is collected into the WWTP.

For backwashing of softener tanks, wastewater is generated at the rate of 338 m3/day.
In the regeneration cycle of softeners, a highly mineralized waste stream is produced,
containing the hardness accumulated during the softening cycle as well as excess sodium
chloride. After contacting the resin with a strong NaCl solution, the medium is flushed out
with water to remove the excesss sodium chloride and this waste is disposed of to the WWTP.
Water used for cleaning of vehicles, scrubbers and manual stock washing are also all drained
into the WWTP at the rate of 123, 10 and 117 m3/day respectively. Since the supplied pre-
treated water to the canteen is purified for drinking and cooking, it was assumed that only 50%
of the input or 11 m3/day comes out as influent to the WWTP. Likewise in the training center,
only 50% or 11 m3/day of the pre-treated water goes to the WWTP, the rest of it is water for
sanitary purposes which is drained separately.

53
 49 m 3 /d 49 m 3 /d
Lin e D Clean in g
123 m 3 /d 123 m 3 /d
C lean in g of veh icles
10 m 3 /d 10 m 3 /d
W et scrubbers
5, 598 m 3 /d PRE -T RE A T M E N T 5,318 m 3 /d 1,751 m 3 /d 22 m 3 /d 11 m 3 /d
RAW W ATE R T rain in g Cen ter
PLANT
21 m 3 /d 11 m 3 /d
3
C an teen
280 m /d B ackwash water 3,567 m 3 /d
(losses) 338 m 3 /d 338 m 3 /d
Soften er Backwash in g
117 m 3 /d 117 m 3 /d
M an ual stock wash in g
W AT E R 1,290 m 3 /d 2,277 m 3 /d
1,071m 3 /d
T REAT M E N T O th ers - clean in g of 854 m 3 /d
PLANT toilets an d floors,etc.

40 m 3 /d 40 m 3 /d
Lubrication of Lin e D
B ackwash water
(losses) 96 m 3 /d 96 m 3 /d
Post-m ix lin e
64 m 3 /d 35 m 3 /d 35 m 3 /d
3 PE T Line
SOFTE NING 2,254 m /d
PLANT 68 m 3 /d 55 m 3 /d
Boilers
R egeneration Solution
307 m 3 /d 307 m 3 /d
(losses) C ooling W ater
1,101 m 3 /d 1,708 m 3 /d 1,708 m 3 /d
23 m 3 /d Bottle-wash ers
Product
125 m 3 /d 122 m 3 /d
Clean in g; D rin kin g;
249 m 3 /d
367 m 3 /d
(losses) Treatm en t Losses
4,243 m 3 /d
3,994 m 3 /d WWTP

Figure 5.21 Water consumption and wastewater generation in the plant

54
 The highest consumer of soft water in the plant are the bottle washing units which use up
1,708 m3/day for washing and rinsing processes. A steady stream of fresh soft water is supplied
for final rinsing. A part of the final rinse is reused as pre-rinse in each bottle washer. The rest of
the final rinse and the pre-rinse effluent are discharged to the WWTP. Therefore essentially all
of the input water comes out of the bottle washers as wastewater. The post-mix washing unit
discharges wastewater of similar nature to bottle washing effluents at the rate of 96 m3/day. The
soft water for production lines D and PET consumed at 40 and 35 m3/day respectively, also
become part of the waste stream treated at the WWTP. The cooling water in the refrigeration
plant is also drained directly to the WWTP at the rate of 307 m3/day whereas weekly blowdown
of boilers produces a waste stream highly loaded with impurities that concentrate in the boiler
(Degremont, 1979). Assuming that 20% of the steam is lost in the process, wastewater from the
boilers is estimated to be 55 m3/day. On the other hand, it was assumed that only 122 m3/day of
treated water used for washing pipelines and tanks become wastewater, while 3 m3/day is
consumed as drinking water when each worker drinks one liter daily. Table 5.5 shows that the
total wastewater accounted for is 4,243 m3/day, which is 98.7% of the average daily flowrate
(4,298 m3/day) of influent measured at the WWTP sump.

Table 5.5 Average water consumption and wastewater generation rates of the plant

WASTEWATER
WATER CONSUMPTION
TYPE OF USAGE GENERATED
QUALITY RATE (m3/day)
(m3/day)
Pre-treated line D cleaning 49 49
cleaning of trucks 123 123
scrubbers 10 10
training center 22 11
canteen 21 11
backwashing of softener tanks 338 338
manual washing of stocks 117 117
cleaning of toilets, machines, etc 1,071 854
Sub-total 1,751 1,513
Soft lubrication of line D 40 40
post-mix line 96 96
PET line 35 35
boilers 68 55
cooling water (refrigeration) 307 307
bottle washers 1,708 1,708
Sub-total 2,254 2,241
Treated product 1,101 0
cleaning of pipelines/drinking 125 122
Sub-total 1,226 122
Treatment Losses (filter backwash, etc.) 367 367
GRAND TOTAL 5,598 4,243

55
5.8 Water Reuse Strategies in the plant

5.8.1 Rationale of Recycling Water in the Plant

In the rapidly expanding area of Pathumthani, Thailand, excessive pumping of water from
existing acquifers has been experienced and has resulted in contractions at the clay beds and
ground subsistence of up to 150 mm per annum (DMR, 1991). Statistics show that water
withdrawal rate in the Bangkok Metropolis and adjacent provinces is 1.4 million cubic meters per
day. According to the Department of Mineral Resources, there will be a government restriction
on digging more wells in the future around the Metropolitan Bangkok area which includes
Pathumthani.

A setting like this has serious implications to industries that depend on groundwater
sources for their water supply. The softdrink industry in particular which uses a large amount of
water will be limited in their future expansion plans. Therefore, it is imperative that alternative
ways of finding water sources or conserving water be developed for the sustainability of the
company. Considering that using recycled water in a food industry can be a sensitive issue to
consumers, it is best that reuse strategies be restricted to secondary purposes that will not directly
affect the quality of the softdrink product.

5.8.2 Microfiltration of Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent

In Section 5.7, it was shown that 20% of the raw water input is converted into softdrink
while 76% ends up in the WWTP. The amount of wastewater that goes to the WWTP daily is
4,243 m3. Considering the amount of wastewater lost from the 49,000 m2 ponds due to
evaporation (0.005 m/d) and soil seepage (3 x 10-5 m/h), the final effluent discharged to the river
is 3,994 m3/d. If this amount of water undergoes further treatment, then this can be recycled back
to the plant and the total amount of water withdrawn from the wells can be reduced.

In view of this, TPDL, Pathumthani decided to install a microfiltration unit that will polish
the wastewater treatment plant effluent before it gets discharged to the receiving water. The
project will employ one unit of the 60M10C MEMTEC modular effluent polishing treatment
plant (See Appendix J). The major advantage of this system is that it gives good quality permeate
that can be recycled for other uses within the plant. Table 5.6 shows the efficiency of MF in
polishing the WWTP effluent.

The process will involve pumping the WWTP effluent through a backwashable strainer
into the 200 m3 MF breaktank. The unit is equipped with 60 sub-modules of 0.2 micron hollow
fiber, polypropylene MF membranes Backflushing with sterile, compressed air will be automatic
every 15 to 20 minutes for 100-200 seconds. This backwash water will be pumped back to the
primary lagoon of the WWTP. Chemical cleaning of the membranes will be carried out
periodically with 2% caustic or citric solution. The permeate will be collected in a storage tank,
ready for recycling.

56
 Table 5.6 Treatment efficiency of the 60M10C MF unit in filtering WWTP effluent*

PARAMETERS FEED PERMEATE % REMOVAL

BOD (mg/L) 10.50 0.55 95
COD (mg/L) 51.35 2.75 95
Suspended solids (mg/L) 17.00 n.d. 100
Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 1.00 0.66 34
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 6.62 4.19 37
Oil and grease (mg/L) n.d. n.d. --
* Analysis conducted by UAE Consultant Co., Ltd.

The MF polishing unit can yield a permeate of 100 m3/h for the feed at 28°C. At the
designed permeate yield of 85%, the plant can potentially recover 3,395 m3/d of microfiltered
water which is free of suspended materials, bacteria and colloidal matter. Therefore, this
recovered water is ideal for reuse in processes which do not require high quality water such as
those that consume pre-treated water. It can also be softened for distribution to soft-water-
requiring streams outside the main production line.

As depicted in Figure 5.22, the reuse of microfiltered effluent results to a reduction in raw
water consumption which translates to a minimum savings of 210,000 Baht per month. Fourty-
four percent of the WWTP effluent can be directly reused for some of the plant’s water needs
while 11 % more can be softened prior to utilization. This creates two positive impacts to the
environment: first, the amount of water that is discharged to the river is significantly reduced by
65.5%; and second, raw water drawn from the wells is conserved considerably by 40%.

The proposed reuse strategy was limited by the fact that reuse can only be done for
purposes such as cleaning of production floors and surrounding areas, delivery vehicles, and the
like. Soft water produced from microfiltered effluent is also useful as process water for boilers
and cooling water for the refrigeration plant. In the main production area, it can also be used for
lubricating conveyor belts. This proposed water reuse strategy ensures that in all cases, no
recycled water will be used for processes that have direct contact with the product.

5.8.3 Purification and Reuse of Bottle Washer Rinse Water

The water balance (Figures 5.21 and 5.22) clearly shows that the bottle washing units
have the highest demand for water. These units also generate the largest amount of wastewater
compared to other unit processes in the plant. Therefore, it is seen that a great potential for water
conservation lies in purifying and reusing the relatively good quality final rinse effluent from the
bottle washing units instead of draining it to the WWTP. There are two possible ways of doing
this. First is by membrane filtration. This can recover pure water and concentrate the caustic
content of the rinse water at the same time. Second is by ion-exchange, whereby caustic is
removed from the rinse water and pure water is recovered for reuse. The intention in this section
of the research was purely to generate a conceptual design for the plant under study. Therefore,

57
pilot-scale studies are a must to confirm the actual viability of the following proposed
alternatives.

58
 49 m3/d 49 m3/d
Line D Cleaning
3
123 m /d 123 m3/d
1,708 m3/d Cleaning of vehicles
3
10 m /d 10 m3/d
Wet scrubbers
3 3
3
3,358 m /d PRE-TREATMENT
3
3,190 m /d 43 m /d 1,071 m /d 854 m3/d
RAW Other uses
WATER PLANT
338 m3/d 338 m3/d
Softener Backwashing
168 m3/d Backwash water
(losses)
3,147 m3/d 117 m3/d 117 m3/d
Manual stock washing
21 m3/d 11 m3/d
420 m3/d Canteen
22 m3/d 11 m3/d
Training Center
WATER
1,290 m3/d 1,857 m3/d 40 m3/d
TREATMENT 40 m3/d
PLANT Lubrication of Line D
415 m3/d 307 m3/d 307 m3/d
Cooling Water
Backwash water 68 m3/d 55 m3/d
(losses) SOFTENING Boilers

64 m3/d
PLANT 35 m3/d 35 m3/d
PET Line
Regeneration Solution
(losses) 1,839 m3/d 96 m3/d 96 m3/d
Post-mix line
1,101 m3/d 23 m3/d 1,708 m3/d 1,708 m3/d
Product Bottle-washers
125 m3/d 122 m3/d
Cleaning; Drinking;
249 m3/d 255 m3/d
(losses) Treatment Losses
2,128 m3/d Microfiltration 2,504 m3/d 4,131 m3/d
Water for
Reuse Polishing Unit WWTP
permeate 1,754 m3/d
(to river)
concentrate

Figure 5.22 Water balance showing the reuse of microfiltered WWTP effluent

56
A. Membrane Filtration of Bottle Washer Rinse Water

A research by Tay and Jeyaseelan (1996) revealed that bottle washing wastewater can be
treated by UF or RO for reuse. The study further showed that it was economically feasible
because the membrane filtration treatment systems did not only reduce the consumption of input
water but energy was conserved as hot water was recovered in the process. The characteristics of
the wastewater studied by Tay and Jeyaseelan were found similar to those of the bottle washer
effluent discharged by TPDL, Pathumthani (Table 5.7). Therefore, membrane technology for
water recovery will also be viable in the case of TPDL.

Table 5.7 Comparison of the bottle washer wastewater characteristics

Bottle washing wastewater Final Rinse Effluent

PARAMETER
(Tay and Jeyaseelan,1996) (TPDL, Pathumthani)
Temperature (°C) 40-50 40-50
pH 8.5 10-11
Color (Hazen units) 90 5-10
Turbidity (NTU) 11 5.2
TDS (mg/L) 3,370 1,832
Conductivity (µS/cm) 3,360 1,628
Suspended solids (mg/L) no data 32
COD (mg/L) 680 393

Conceptually, the RO system will produce an effluent that is better than potable water,
thus it will be acceptable for reuse in the bottle washing units. It is proposed that a MF unit be
installed as a pre-treatment unit for such a system. If the MF/RO system were employed for the
recovery of the wastewater from the last compartment and the final rinse effluent that is directly
discharged to the WWTP, then, 285 m3/d of rinse water is potentially recoverable from each
bottle washer. At the same time, the caustic drained from the system can be recovered as a
concentrate in the RO system. Assuming an overall yield of 83% for the MF/RO system, then a
total of 237 m3/d of soft water and 5 m3 of 3% (w/w) of caustic solution (containing 170 kg of
NaOH) can be recycled back to the bottle washers (Figure 5.23) daily. This reduces the amount
of input rinse water by 56% and the input caustic soda by 60%. The impact of this recovery
system on the overall water balance in the plant is illustrated in Figure 5.24.

Considering that the microfiltered effluent is utilized as suggested earlier, then,

purification and reuse of rinse water will further reduce raw water consumption by 30% from
3,358 m3/d to 2,350 m3/d. This reuse strategy will have a corresponding effect on the
wastewater generation of the plant and will reduce the water discharged to the river from 1,754
m3/d to 740 m3/d, equivalent to 57.8% reduction. A financial analysis conducted for this recovery
system gave a payback period of 3.2 years and an IRR of 31.3%, with a NPV of 5.5 M Baht. The
savings taken into account included the value of recovered soft water and caustic solution, and
the savings on wastewater treatment cost (Table K1, Appendix K).

59
 Caustic Concentrated (3% w/w) caustic solution for reuse, 5 m3/d
soda tank 170 kg/d
to WWTP
Final rinse NaOH
wastewater
Soft 190 m3/d 427 m3/d Bottle
Water Washer 285 m3/d 242 m3/d RO
MF
211 kg/d NaOH 170 kg/d NaOH
237 m3/d
237 m3/d water

Purified soft water for reuse

Figure 5.23 Schematic of the proposed MF/RO system for caustic and water recovery

B. Recovery of Bottle Washer Rinse Water by Ion Exchange

Ion exchange (IE) can remove a variety of dissolved solids. In water softening, IE is
extensively used to remove calcium and magnesium ions in water by replacing them with another
non-hardness cation, usually sodium. This exchange occurs at a solids interface.

For the purpose of purifying the final rinse water contaminated with NaOH, a weak acid
cation exchange column can be employed. As the alkaline water is contacted with the resin, the
following generalized reaction occurs:

R- COOH + NaOH R-COONa + H2O (Equation 5.7)

As long as exchange sites are available in the medium, reaction will be virtually instantaneous
and complete. However, when all exchange sites are utilized, regeneration of the resin should be
carried out by contacting it with 35% HCl solution. The strength of the regenerant solution
overrides the selectivity of the adsorption sites (Peavy et al., 1985) and sodium is replaced by
hydrogen as shown in the following reaction:

R-COONa + HCl R-COOH + NaCl (Equation 5.8)

To avoid plugging the resin with particulates, it is recommended that the rinse wastewater
be pre-treated by dual-media filtration (DF) before it passes through the IE column. For a
continuous process to be possible, there must be two units each of the prefilter and the IE column
installed for each bottle washer to accommodate the regeneration cycle of the resin (Figure 5.25).
At a designed recovery rate of 80%, the IE system will recover 228 m3/d of water that can be
reused back to the bottle washer.

60
 49 m3/d 49 m3/d
Line D Cleaning
123 m3/d 123 m3/d
3 Cleaning of vehicles
1,708 m /d
3
10 m /d 10 m3/d
Wet scrubbers
3
2,350 m3/d PRE-TREATMENT 2,233 m /d 43 m3/d 1,071 m3/d 854 m3/d
RAW Other uses
WATER PLANT
338 m3/d 338 m3/d
Softener Backwashing
117 m3/d Backwash water
117 m3/d 117 m3/d
(losses) 2,190 m3/d Manual stock washing
21 m3/d 11 m3/d
420 m3/d Canteen
22 m3/d 11 m3/d
Training Center
3 3
WATER 1,290 m /d 900 m /d
40 m3/d 40 m3/d
TREATMENT Lubrication of Line D
PLANT 415 m3/d 307 m3/d 307 m3/d
Regeneration Solution
(losses) Cooling Water
13 m3/d SOFTENING
Backwash water 68 m3/d 55 m3/d
PLANT Boilers
(losses)
760 m3/d
35 m3/d
3
64 m /d 948 m3/d rinse water 35 m3/d
PET Line
96 m3/d 96 m3/d
1,140 m3/d MF/RO Post-mix line
Bottle-washers
1,101 m /d 3 recovery system Recovered caustic for reuse (4.85 m3/d)
Product 791 m3/d
Pre-rinse effluent and MF concentrate
125 m3/d 122 m3/d
Cleaning; Drinking;
249 m3/d 194 m3/d
(losses) Treatment Losses
Water for 2,128 m3/d Microfiltration 3
2,504 m /d 3,117 m3/d
Reuse permeate Polishing Unit WWTP
740 m3/d (to
river)
concentrate

Figure 5.24 Water balance showing the reuse of membrane filtered rinse water
59
 Financial analysis of the proposed DF/IE installation gave a payback period of 3.4 years
and an IRR of 30.5%, with a NPV of 2.2 M Baht. Details of the costs involved and the savings on
wastewater treatment and soft water recovery can be found in Table K2, Appendix K. The overall
impact of this alternative on the water balance of the plant as depicted in Figure 5.26 will be
similar to that of the MF/RO system. Raw water input will be reduced by 29% and the make-up
rinse water for the bottle washers will be reduced by 53%. However, the introduction of the 35%
HCl regenerant solution in this water recovery strategy will produce additional 0.5 m3/d of P P

wastewater loaded with NaCl.

Dual-media Ion-exchange
filter column
Final rinse 1 1
3
Soft 199 m /d
P P
3
427 m /d
P P Bottle wastewater
Water Washer
285 m3/d P P

211 kg/d NaOH 2 2 228 m3/d

P P

228 m3/d P P

Purified soft water for reuse

Figure 5.25 Design schematic of the DF/IE system for final rinse recovery

Designing a scheme for reduced water consumption and wastewater generation for a
specific plant often requires a compromise among water quality needs, wastewater constituents,
operating costs and capital equpment costs. A comparison of the two proposed rinse water
recovery systems is presented in Table 5.8. Each alternative has its own pros and cons - choosing
an optimum system is simply a matter of corporate decision among company executives.

Table 5.8 Comparison of proposed rinse water recovery systems

PARAMETER MF/RO DF/IE

System System
1. Raw water consumption (m3/d) P P 2,350 2,388
2. Water discharged to river (m3/d) P P 740 779
3. Soft water recovered (m3/d) P P 948 912
4. Caustic soda recovered (kg/d) 170 0
5. Installation cost (Baht/ BW unit) 4,200,000 1,780,000
6. Net annual savings (Baht/ BW unit) 1,322,000 525,184
7 Net Present Value (Baht/BW unit) 5,500,000 2,200,000
8. Payback period (years/ BW unit) 3.2 3.4
9. Internal rate of return (%/ BW unit) 31.3 30.5

62
 49 m3/d P P 49 m3/d P P

Line D Cleaning
123 m3/d P P 123 m3/d P P

3 Cleaning of vehicles
1,708 m /d P P

10 m3/d P P 10 m3/d P P

Wet scrubbers
3
2,388 m3/d P P

PRE-TREATMENT 2,269 m /d P P
43 m3/dP P 1,071 m3/d P P
854 m3/d P P

RAW Other uses

WATER PLANT
338 m3/d P P

338 m3/d
Softener Backwashing
P P

119 m3/d Backwash water

117 m3/d 117 m3/d
P P

2,226 m3/d
P

(losses)
P

Manual stock washing P P

P P

21 m3/d 11 m3/d
420 m3/d
P P
P P

Canteen
P P

22 m3/d P P
11 m3/d P P

Training Center
WATER 1,290 m3/d 936 m3/d
40 m3/d 40 m3/d
P P
P P

P P
P

TREATMENT
P

Lubrication of Line D
PLANT 415 m3/d 307 m3/d 307 m3/d
Regeneration Solution P P P P
P P

(losses) Cooling Water

14 m3/d P

SOFTENING 55 m3/d
P

Backwash water 68 m3/d P P P P

PLANT Boilers
(losses) 3
796 m /d
35 m3/d
P P

3 35 m3/d
P

912 m3/d rinse water

P

64 m /d P P
P P
P P

PET Line
96 m3/d 96 m3/d
1,140 m3/d
P P

P P

P P

Ion exchange Post-mix line

Bottle-washers
1,101 m3/d P P
recovery system 35% HCl for regeneration
Product 791 m3/d P P

Pre-rinse effluent and spent brine solution

125 m3/d P P
d 122 m3/d P

Cleaning; Drinking;
P

249 m3/d
P P
197 m3/d P P

(losses) Treatment Losses

Water for 2,128 m3/d P P

Microfiltration 2,504 m3/d

P P
3,156 m3/d P P

Reuse permeate Polishing Unit WWTP

779 m3/d (to P P

river)
concentrate

Figure 5.26 Water balance showing the reuse of recovered rinse water by ion exchange

63
 CHAPTER 6

Conclusions and Recommendations

The following conclusions were reached from this study:

1. The characteristics of caustic soda in terms of pH, TDS, COD, color and conductivity in
the different soaking compartments of the bottle washer vary with length of production
time. Generally, as production time increases, the strength of caustic as waste also
increases.

2. Pilot-scale membrane filtration of spent caustic soda using 0.2 µm MEMTEC hollow fiber
membranes revealed that MF can successfully remove 100% of suspended solids, 26% of
COD and 60% of color from the waste. Based on permeate quality and flux, the optimum
applied pressure for MF was found to be 101 kPa (1.0 bar), with a caustic recovery of
85%.

3. Nanofiltration of the microfiltered caustic using MPS-34 (MWCO=300) showed that at the
optimum applied pressure of 1,414 kPa (14 bar), removal efficiencies greater than 95% for
color and 80% for COD were achieved. Caustic recovery was found to be 91%. The
purified caustic is fit for reuse in the bottle washers.

4. The designed large-scale MF/NF system for caustic recovery was not economically
feasible. The payback period of seven years is very high, and at the same time, the internal
rate of return (13.7%) is very low. Moreover, the system will be under-utilized since
operation only totals 853 hours per year. This in turn is caused by the caustic being
drained only every after three months of use per bottle washer.

5. Of the 432 kg of caustic added to the bottle washer per day, 70% is drained out of the unit
with the rinse water, while 30% is lost in the chemical reactions. Therefore, there is a great
potential in recovering the caustic from the rinse water.

6. Water consumption profile of the plant revealed that raw water is drawn from deepwells at
an average rate of 5,598 m3/d. Out of this volume, 31.3% (1,752 m3/d) is consumed as
pre-treated process water, 21.9% (1,226 m3/d) as treated water and 40.3% (2,256 m3/d) as
soft water. The amount of wastewater treated in the biological WWTP averages 4,243
m3/d, of which 40% comes from the bottle washing units.

7. Microfiltration of WWTP effluent and recycling of the permeate in unit processes which
are not directly in contact with the product leads to cosiderable reductions in raw water
input by 40% and liquid discharged to the river by 65.5%.

64
8. There are two proposed alternatives for purification of final rinse effluent for reuse in
bottle washing units. These are membrane filtration by MF/RO and ion exchange. The
MF/RO system recovers pure water and caustic solution in the process. This gave a
payback period of 3.2 years and an IRR of 31.3%. On the other hand, treatment of rinse
water by ion exchange recovers only water. The payback period for this system is 3.4
years while IRR is 30.5%.

From these findings, it is recommended that:

1. further investigation on the chemical reactions of caustic with impurities from bottle
washing be conducted, to explain the high COD content of the NF permeate ;

2. comparative studies be carried out to evaluate the performance of other commercially-

available MF and NF membranes for caustic soda recovery;

3. actual pilot-runs be performed on the proposed treatment of final rinse effluent by MF/RO
system and ion-exchange to verify their applicability to the specific waste being generated
at the TPDL;

65
 References

ANONYMOUS I, 1994. SelRo membranes: a new class of solvent, caustic, acid stable
membranes. Asian Water and Sewage, Sep.-Oct., p.36.

ANONYMOUS II, 1995. Green ALKASAVE membrane system cost-effective. Asian Water
and Sewage, Jul-Aug., p. 36-37.

BARISH, N.N. and S. KAPLAN, 1978. Economic Analysis for Engineering and Managerial
Decision Making. 2nd ed, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

BEN AIM, R. and S. VIGNESWARAN, 1988. Application of Membrane Processes in Water

and Wastewater Treatment. ENFO, 10, 1: pp. 3-6.

BOFFARDI, B.P. and A.L. SMITH, 1995. Chemical Treatment Makes Cooling Water
Reusable. Chemical Engineering, 102, 7:106-108.

BYERS, B., 1995. Zero Discharge: A systematic Approach to Water Reuse. Chemical
Engineering, 102, 7: 96-100.

BYRNE, W., 1995. Reverse Osmosis, A practical Guide for Industrial Users. USA: Tall
Oaks Publishing.

CAPOBIANCO, D.J. and F.C. BLANC, 1990. Treatment of Softdrink Syrup and Bottling
Wastewater using Anaerobic Upflow Packed Bed Reactors, in Proceedings of the 44th
Industrial Waste Conference May 9-11, 1989 Purdue University. Michigan: Lewis Publishers.

CAPPOS, S., 1995. Membranes Minimize Liquid Discharge. Chemical Engineering, 102, 7:
102-104.

CARTWRIGHT, P., 1994. Pollution Prevention Drives Membrane Technologies. Chemical

Engineering, 101, 9: 84-87.

DAVIS, M.L. and D.A. CORNWELL,1991. Introduction to Environmental Engineering. 2nd

ed., Singapore:McGraw-Hill Book Co.

DEGREMONT, 1979. Water Trt. Handbook. 5th ed, New York: Halsted Press.

DMR (Department of Mineral Resources), 1995. Document on state of groundwater souces in

Bankok, Thailand.

DURANCEAU S.J., J.S. TAYLOR and L.A. MULFORD, 1992. SOC Removal in a
Membrane Softening Process. J. AWWA, 84, 1: 68-78.

66
FRESNIUS, W., W. SCHNEIDER, B. BOHNKE and K. POPPINGHAUS, eds., 1989. Waste
Water Technology: Origin, Collection, Treatment and Analysis of Wastewater. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 164-166.

HAUCK, J. and S. MASOOMIAN, 1990. Alternative Technologies for Wastewater

Treatment. Pollution Enginnering, 22, 5: 81-84.

HERER, D.O., 1992. Wastewater Pretreatment. Pollution Engineering, 24, 10: 35-39.

HO, W.S. W. and K.K. SIRKAR (eds.), 1992. Membrane Handbook. New York: Chapman
Hall.

JACOBS, M.B., 1959. Manufacture and Analysis of Carbonated Beverages. New York:
Chemical Engineering Co., Inc.

KIERNAN, J.C., W.T. HARVEY and D. BURRAGE, 1992. Electrodialysis Reversal Brine
Concentration for Zero Liquid Discharge: The Ocean State Power Story. USA: Tall Oaks
Publishing, Inc.

MICHAELS, S.L., 1989. Crossflow Microfilters: The Ins and Outs. Chemical Engineering,
96, 1: 84-91.

MOONEY, G.A., 1992. Polution Prevention: Shrinking the Waste Streams. Pollution
Engineering, 24, 5: 36-41.

MOORE, J.W., 1989. Balancing the Needs of Water Use.New York: Springer-Verlag.268 pp.

MPW (Membrane Products Worldwide), 1994. Recovery of Spent Caustic Cleaning Solution
from Food Processing Equipment. Company Catalogue.

NEMEROW, N.L., 1978. Industrial Water Pollution: Origin, Characteristics and Treatment.
USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.

NOBLE, R.O. and S.A. STERN (eds.), 1995. Membrane Separations Technology, Principles
and Applications. Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V.

PEAVY, H.S., D.R. ROWE and G. TCHOBANOGLOUS, 1985. Environmental Engineering.

Singapore: Mc-Graw-Hill Book Co.

PEPPER, D., 1981. Recovery of Materials from Effluents by Membrane Systems, in Food
Industry Wastes: Disposal and Recovery. A. Herzka and R.G. Booth, eds. Great Britain:
Applied Science Publishers, Ltd., pp. 204-209.

RAMAN, L.P., M. CHERYAN and N. RAJAGOPALAN, 1994. Consider Nanofiltration for

Membrane Separations. Chem. Engg. Progress, 90, 3: 68-74.

67
RAUTENBACH, R. and R. ALBRECHT, 1989. Membrane Processes. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.

ROSAIN, R.M., 1993. Reusing Water in CPI Plants. Chem. Engg. Progress, 89, 4: 28-35.

ROY, P.K., 1995. Nanofiltration as a Tertiary Treatment for Phosphate Removal from
Wastewater. Master’s Thesis, AIT, Thailand.

SHUKLA, S.D. and G.N. PANDEY, 1979. A Textbook of Chemical Technology, Vol. II
(organic). Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, Pvt., Ltd.

Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1985. 16th,

APHA.AWWA.WPCF.

TAN, L. and R.G. SUDAK, 1992. Removing Color from a Groundwater Source. J. AWWA,
84,1: 79-87.

TAY, J. and S. JEYASEELAN, 1994. Reuse of Wastewater from Beverage Industry by

Membrane Filtration. Proceedings of the ASEAN-Europe Workshop on Membrane Technology
in Agro-based Industry, 26-30 July 1994, KL, Malaysia,. 28-43.

TZENG, W.C. and R.R. ZALL, 1990. Combining Polymers with Chemical, Thermal and
Turbulent Conditions to Clean Ultrafiltration Membrane Fouled with Milk. Process Biochem
International, 25, 3: 71-78.

VIGNESWARAN, S., VIGNESWARAN, B and R. BEN AIM, 1991. Application of

Microfiltration for Water and Wastewater Treatment. ENSIC No. 31, AIT, Bangkok,
Thailand.

VIRARAGHAN, T., 1994. Pollution Control in the Dairy Industry, in Process Engineering for
Pollution Control and Waste Minimization. D.L. Wise and D.J. Trantolo, eds. New York:
Marcel-Dekker, Inc., pp. 705-709.
WEAST , R.C., (chief ed.), 1989. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Florida: CRC Press,
69th ed.

WEISNER, M.R. et al, 1992. Committee Report: Membrane Processes in Potable Water
Treatment. J. AWWA, 84, 1: 59-67.

YUANZHEN, W., 1995. Water Treatment by Membrane Filtration. Master’s Thesis, AIT,
Thailand.

68
 APPENDIX A

Table 1. Washing process specifications for the Bottle-washers

PROCESS SPECIFICATIONS
Bottle Washers A and B Bottle Washers D1 and D2
1. PRE-RINSING with warm Outside jets: 2 rows Outside jets: 2 rows
reclaimed water Inside jets: 3 rows Inside jets: 2 rows
2. CAUSTIC SOAKING Caustic contact time: Caustic contact time:
which includes jetting 9.4 mins. at 970 BPM 10 mins. at 1,100 BPM
Caustic immersion time: Caustic immersion time:
6.4 mins. at 970 BPM 7.2 mins.at 1,100 BPM
3. CAUSTIC JETTING Radial inside jets: 2 rows Radial inside jets: 2 rows
outside jets: 2 times outside jets: 3 times
Horizontal inside jet: 6 rows Horizontal inside jet:
6 rows
4 .HOT WATER SOAKING Contact time: Contact time:
which removes most of the 0.6 min. at 970 BPM 0.8 min. at 1,100 BPM
caustic solution from bottles
5. SECONDARY RECLAIM Outside jets: 2 rows Outside jets: 2 rows
WATER RINSING Inside jets: 4 rows Inside jets: 3 rows
6. PRIMARY RECLAIM Inside jets: 4 rows Inside jets: 2 rows
WATER RINSING Outside jets: 3 rows
7. FRESH WATER RINSING Outside jets: 2 rows Outside jets: 2 rows
Inside jets: 3 rows Inside jets: 3 rows

69
 APPENDIX B

Table B1. Specifications of MEMTECH Microfiltration Pilot Unit

1. OPERATING CONDITIONS
- circulating flow rate (maximum) 6 m3/h
- backwash pressure setting 600 kPa
2. MAIN STRUCTURE
- construction material SS 304
3. FEED TANK
- Volume 60L
- Material polyvinyl chloride
4. PUMPING SYSTEM
- Flow Centrifugal pump
- Filtration Direction Crossflow
- Wetted materials polypropylene
5. MEASURING and CONTROL ELEMENTS Programmable Logic
Controller - Hitachi E-20 HR
6. CONTROL PANEL includes:
- Start/stop, Membrane test, Manual backwash,
Ancillary, and Membrane rewet push buttons
- Backwash interval timer
- Power requirements 1 phase, 240 V/50 Hz,
neutral and earth

Table B2. Specifications of the MF membrane element used

Physical details
Manufacturer MEMTEC
Membrane Material polypropylene
Membrane Type hollow fiber
Filtration direction outside in
Pore size (nominal) 0.2 micrometer
Design surface area 4 x 1 m2
Operating limits
Temperature range 5 to 40°C
pH range 2-14
Maximum transmembrane pressure 200 kPa
Maximum feed pressure 600 kPa
Maximum total chlorine/chloramine <0.05 ppm

70
 Table B3. Specifications of M204-SW pilot unit for the NF membrane system.

1. OPERATING CONDITIONS
- circulating flow rate (maximum) 19 L / min
- operating pressure (maximum) 4,040 kPa (40 bar)
- operating temperature 70oC
2. MAIN STRUCTURE
- construction material SS 304
- approximate dimensions (L/W/H) 1.2 x 0.7 x 1.5 meters
- mounted on 4 casters
3. FEED TANK
- Volume 40 L
- Material SS 316
4. PUMPING SYSTEM
- Positive displacement pump: SS 316
Flow (maximum) 19 L /min
Pressure (maximum) 4,040 kPa (40 bar)
Temperature (maximum) 70oC
- Feed pump - Centrifugal pump
Flow 19 L per minute
Pressure ~ 101 kPa (1 bar)
Wetted materials polypropeylene
6. CONTROL PANEL includes:
- Start/stop push buttons
- Alarm lights and safety interlocks for high/low pressure; high
temperature; low level in feed tank; and temperature controller
- Power requirements 3 phase, 380 V/50 Hz

Table B4. Specifications of the MPS-34 NF membrane element

Physical details
Manufacturer Membrane Products Kiryat Weizmann, Ltd.
Membrane Material polypropylene
Membrane Type spiral wound
Element diameter and length 2.5” x 40” (6.4 cm x 101.6 cm)
Feed spacer 30 mil (0.08 cm) , symmetrical, diamond
Design surface area 1.6 m2
Operating limits
Maximum temperature 45°C
pH range 0-14
Feed flowrate range 6-26.5 L/min
Maximum operating pressure 4,040 kPa (40 bar)

71
 APPENDIX C

Table C1. Characteristics of caustic wastewater in Compartment 1

Volume of soaking solution: 15 m3

PARAMETERS Length of production hours in use (h)

295 383 471 1266 1312
pH 13.90 13.64 13.78 13.61 13.90
Temperature (oC) 48 47 52 50 n.d.*
NaOH concn. (%) 2.3 3.0 3.0 2.4 4.17**
Total Solids (mg/L) 37,580 40,422 41,799 50,388 59,763
SS (mg/L) 54 37.5 48 23 23
TDS (mg/L) 37,526 40,384 41,751 50,365 59,730
Apparent Color (Hazen units) 300 150 150 800 600
Turbidity (NTU) 17 20 23 8 8
COD (mg/L) 9,639 6,295 6,857 10,667 8,813
Conductivity (mS/cm) 88.7 100 103 105 112.5
* n.d. - no data
**Based on caustic analyis carried out in AIT laboratory. Other values taken from the factory.

Table C2. Characteristics of caustic wastewater in Compartment 2

Volume of soaking solution: 15 m3

Length of production hours in use (h)

PARAMETERS
295 383 471 1266 1312
pH 13.90 13.81 13.80 13.70 13.87
Temperature (oC) 66 66 68 65 n.d.*
NaOH concn. (%) 3.3 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.37**
Total Solids (mg/L) 56,032 42,735 45,399 59,246 61,775
SS (mg/L) 110 325 59 25 30
TDS (mg/L) 55,922 42,702 45,340 59,221 61,745
Apparent Color (Hazen units) 300 133 150 600 600
Turbidity (NTU) 19 22 18 7 4
COD (mg/L) 7,278 5,115 4,762 10,667 10,125
Conductivity (mS/cm) 115 105 108 103 90
* n.d. - no data
**Based on caustic analyis carried out in AIT laboratory. Other values taken from factory analysis.

72
 Table C3. Characteristics of caustic wastewater in Compartment 3
Volume of soaking solution: 25 m3

Length of production hours in use (h)

PARAMETERS

295 383 471 1266 1312

pH 13.90 13.88 13.84 13.74 13.87
Temperature (oC) 72 70 70 68 n.d.*
NaOH concn. (%) 3.2 3.0 3.3 3.1 4.11**
Total Solids (mg/L) 60,968 48,674 50,084 50,084 76,299
SS (mg/L) 181 46 65 66 34
TDS (mg/L) 60,787 48,628 50,019 76,415 76,265
Apparent Color (Hazen units) 400 200 150 600 500
Turbidity (NTU) 23 25 37 19 6
COD (mg/L) 9,836 7,082 5,523 11,429 13,875
Conductivity (mS/cm) 110 111 114 105 101
* n.d. - no data
**Based on caustic analyis carried out in AIT laboratory. Other values taken from factory analysis.

Table C4. Characteristics of caustic wastewater in Compartment 4

Volume of soaking solution: 15 m3

Length of production hours in use (h)

PARAMETERS
295 383 471 1266 1312
pH 13.90 13.87 13.71 13.72 13.86
Temperature (oC) 66 63 62 64 n.d*
NaOH concn. (%) 2.9 3 3 2.8 3.34**
Total Solids (mg/L) 56,836 50,949 35,710 65,431 65,413
SS (mg/L) 59 24 43 34 33
TDS (mg/L) 56,777 50,926 35,667 65,397 65,380
Apparent Color (Hazen units) 300 150 50 400 300
Turbidity (NTU) 14 13 18 8 5
COD (mg/L) 11,803 6,688 4,000 9,714 8,625
Conductivity (mS/cm) 100 109 86 78 86
* n.d. - no data
**Based on caustic analyis carried out in AIT laboratory. Other values taken from factory analysis

73
 APPENDIX D

Air Backflushing Technique in Microfiltration

D1. Fouling of Membranes

One of the major drawbacks affecting the performance efficiency of membranes is the
phenomenon of fouling. In microfiltration, fouling of membranes may be caused by particles
and colloids present in the feed. Bigger particles concentrate on the high pressure side of the
membrane and deposits on the membrane surface (Rautenbach and Albrecht, 1989). Smaller
particles however, concentrate on both sides of the membrane and cause internal pore
clogging. Particle fouling is considered reversible and easily removed by physical methods.
Colloids on the other hand, can get adsorbed both inside and outside of the pores. Removal of
this type of fouling requires both physical and chemical methods.

D2. Backflushing with Gas

There are many techniques that can be used to minimize, if not prevent, membrane
fouling. One efficient way of cleaning deposits and for possible declogging of fouled hollow
fiber membranes is through backflushing with gas. The membrane backflushing system used
in this study involved passing gas through the membrane at high pressure (Figure D).

Gas -
Impurities -

Figure D. Air backflushing of a hollow fiber membrane

As air bubbles through the pores, the hollow fiber membrane expands and shakes loose
any built-up impurities on its surface. Gas explodes through the membrane wall into the feed
stream, carrying away all contaminants (Vigneswaran et al., 1991). In industrial applications,
this process is done at regular time intervals and has been found to successfully maintain a
steady permeate flux.

74
 APPENDIX E

Table E1. Microfiltration permeate characteristics at different operating pressures

Permeate Feed Transmembrane pressure (bar)1

characteristics 0.75 1.00 1.20 1.39
Flux (L/m2-h) -- 200 235 250 308
pH 13.98 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
Turbidity (NTU) 9.0 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.8
Apparent Color (Hazen units) 500 200 200 200 200
Color Reduction (%) -- 60 60 60 60
Conductivity (mS/cm) 100.9 92.9 93.1 91.3 94.1
COD (mg/L) 9,848 8,944 7,301 7,848 8,213
COD Reduction (%) -- 9.2 25.9 20.3 16.6
NaOH concentration. (%) 3.698 2.978 3.110 2.948 2.963
NaOH Recovery (%) -- 80.5 84 79.7 80.2
2
Suspended solids (mg/L) 46 ND ND ND ND
TDS (mg/L) 64,205 50,531 50,851 52,899 49,449
1
1 bar = 101 kPa
2
ND - non-detectable

Table E2. Nanofiltration permeate quality at different transmembrane pressures

Permeate Characteristics Feed Transmembrane pressure (bar)1

8.0 11.0 14.0 17.0
Flux (L/m2 -h) -- 4.75 6.75 14.9 23.5
pH 14.0 14 14 14 14
Turbidity (NTU) 1.32 0.50 0.32 0.44 0.33
Apparent color (Hazen units) 200 50 <5 <5 <5
Color Reduction (%) -- 75 >97.5 >97.5 >97.5
Conductivity (mS/cm) 94.0 93.3 95.5 95.5 94.0
COD (mg/L) 8,606 2,235 2,616 1,646 1,681
COD Reduction (%) -- 74 69.6 80.9 80.5
TDS (mg/L) 48,620 30,685 37,040 29,310 30,202
NaOH concentration (%) 3.110 2.757 2.854 2.832 2.742
NaOH Recovery (%) -- 88.6 91.8 91.1 88.2
1
1 bar = 101 kPa

75
 APPENDIX F

Table F1. Data for overall monthly caustic consumption for the year 1995:

Consumption of 32% Consumption of 32%

MONTH MONTH
NaOH solution (kg) NaOH solution (kg)
January 130,960 July 110,370
February 116,450 August 115,360
March 151,970 September 93,700
April 147,350 October 90,940
May 120,370 November 112,990
June 116,760 December 125,990
Total amount ot 32% caustic solution used = 1,433,210 kg/year

Table F2. Caustic required for bottle washers A and B

COMPARTMENT 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL
3
Volume capacity (m ) 15 15 25 15 9 70
NaOH concentration (%) 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 0 --
Required 32% NaOH (kg) 1406.25 1406.25 2,344 703.13 0 5,860
Total amount of 32% solution for bottle washers A and B: 5,860 x 2 = 11,720 kg

Table F3. Caustic required for bottle washers D1 and D2

COMPARTMENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL
Volume capacity (m3) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.5 36.6
NaOH concentration (%) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 --
Required 32% NaOH (kg) 572 572 572 572 572 572 0 3,431
Total amount of 32% caustic solution for bottle washers D1 and D2: 3,431 x 2 = 6,862 kg

Total amount of 32% caustic solution for all 4 bottle washers (11,720 + 6,862) = 18,582 kg
Total 32% NaOH solution used after each drainage (18,582 kg/drain x 4 drains/yr) = 74,328 kg/yr
Amount used for post-mix container washing (240 kg/day x 300 d/yr) = 72,000 kg/yr
Total 32% NaOH for replenishment in the 4 bottle washers (1,433,210 -74,328 - 72,000) = 1,286,882 kg/yr
Ave. daily consumption rate of caustic for adjustment of concentration (1,286,882/300) = 4,289 kg/day

IMPLICATION: About 23% (4,289 kg /18,582 kg) of the caustic in all the bottle washers are lost in the system
everyday, thus being replaced regularly by addition of caustic into the caustic compartments. Assuming the same
rate of loss in all bottle washers, then the average amount of caustic added daily to each is:

as 32% Solution mass NaOH

Bottle Washer
(kg/day) (kg/day)
A 0.23 (5,860 kg) 1,352 432
B 0.23 (5,860 kg) 1,352 432
D1 0.23 (3,431 kg) 792 253
D2 0.23 (3,431 kg) 792 253

76
 APPENDIX G

Financial Analysis details for the MF/NF caustic recovery system

Table G1. Details of Equipment Cost

Microfiltration1 Nanofiltration1
System
Components Qty Unit price Total Cost Qty Unit price Total Cost
(Baht)2 (Baht) (Baht) (Baht)
1. membrane 4 modules 3,750 15,000 7 modules 25,000 175,000
of 1 m2 of 6.2 m2
2. feed pump 1 9,900 9,900 2 9,900 19,800
3. high pressure 0 -- 0 1 39,450 39,450
pump
4. cartridge 1 3,000 3,000 1 3,000 3,000
5. backwash 1 25,000 25,000 0 --
equipment
6. permeate tank 1 4,295 4,295 1 4,295 4,295
Total 57,195 261,345
1
These comprise only 65% of the total installation cost; the remaining 35% is for pipes,
valves, frameworks and controls (Noble and Stern, 1995). The total installation cost
therefore, amounts to 490,060 Baht.
2
25 Baht - 1 US$

Table G2. Details of operating costs

SAVINGS 183,890 Baht/yr

DEPRECIATION COSTS 40,838 Baht/yr
OPERATING COSTS 72,556 Baht/yr
Power feed pumps (3) - 0.45 kW 6,023 Baht/yr
pressure pump - 2.2 kW
air compressor - 0.75 kW
costs of power - 1.90 Baht/kW-h
working hours- 14 hrs/day
backwash frequency - 200 sec/15 min.
operating time -560 hrs/year
Replacement cartridge filters MF/NF system - 400 Baht/pc. 3,200 Baht/yr
*(set replaced quarterly)
Replacement Membranes MF - 15,000 Baht /set 63,333 Baht/yr
NF - 175,000 Baht/set
*(set replaced every 3 years)
NET ANNUAL SAVINGS 70,496 Baht/yr
PAYBACK PERIOD (Installation cost/Net annual savings) 7.0 years
INTERNAL RATE of RETURN 13.7 %

Sample calculations for PP, IRR and NPV

77
A. Payback Period (PP)

Total Installation Cost 490,060

PP = = = 7.0 years
Net Annual Savings 70,082

B. Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

Net Annual Uniform Savings = Savings - (Depreciation Cost + Power Cost

+ Replacement cartrdige filter cost)
= 183,890 - (40,838 + 6,023 +3,200) = 133,829 Baht/yr.

Replacement Membrane Cost = 190,000 Baht every 3 years

Based on the Cash Flow diagram,

133,829 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133,829

0
12

190,000 190,000 190,000

490,060

the IRR, i* , is calculated as (Barish and Kaplan, 1978):

0 = (Present Worth of Total Cash Inflow) - (Present Worth of Total Cash Outflow)
= {133829 (P/A,i* ,12)} - {490060 + 190000[(P/F,i* ,3) + (P/F,i* ,6) + (P/F,i* ,9)]}
for i* = 12%: IRR(12) = 36295; for i* = 15%: IRR(15) = -27903
Since the desired value of IRR(i*) = 0, we can find i* by iteration:

i* - 12 0 - 36295
, = therefore, i* = 13.7%
15 - 12 -27903 - 36295

C. Net Present Value (NPV)

NPV = (Present Worth of Total Cash Inflow) - (Present Worth of Total Cash Outflow)
= {133829 (P/A, 9% ,12)} - {490060 + 190000[(P/F,9% ,3) + (P/F,9% ,6) + (P/F,9% ,9)]}
where current bank interest rate (i) in Thailand is 9%

Cash in = 133829 [{(1 + 0.09)12 - 1}/0.09 (1 + 0.09)12] = 958,312.7

Cash out = 490060 + 190000 [1/(1 + 0.09)3 + 1/(1 + 0.09)6 + 1/(1 + 0.09)9] = 837,546.9
NPV = 120, 800 Baht

78
79
80
 APPENDIX H

Table H1. Monthly raw water consumption (m3) in the plant (1995-1996)

Average
SOURCE MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR Total rate
(m3/d)
Well-1 0 30,676 31,602 33,094 26,163 27,342 28,024 33,011 50,638 47,291 19,169 15,975 342,985 1,143
Well-2 89,021 70,723 40,316 40,305 37,287 34,495 30,578 30,455 52,255 54,809 27,940 24,350 532,534 1,775
Well-3 73,260 51,874 79,733 79,437 58,953 65,358 71,544 71,100 14,254 12,698 0 0 578,211 1,927
Well-4 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,089 104,034 110,550 225,696 752
TOTAL 162,304 153,273 151,651 152,836 122,403 127,195 130,146 134,566 117,147 125,887 151,143 150,875 1,679,426 5,598

Table H2. Monthly consumption of pre-treated water (m3) in the plant (1995-1996)

Average
MONTH MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR TOTAL rate
(m3/day)
Fleet Maintenance 5,067 5,583 4,509 1,754 1,157 1052 1144 992 1307 881 1086 1266 25,798 86
Park used 387 964 1,022 1,498 881 1130 949 911 672 1100 655 801 10,970 37
Training Center 457 456 450 405 733 149 167 1106 899 1,100 706 566 6,749 22
Canteen 705 764 767 727 553 562 105 459 418 394 396 404 6,254 21
Dust-1 --- 97 577 --- --- --- --- 161 --- --- --- --- 835 3
Dust-2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 184 179 363 1
Backwash 7,055 6,411 6,208 10,042 8,835 11611 9507 9863 4,375 --- 8,018 --- 81,925 273
Stock washing 4,355 5,087 4,044 4,276 969 1383 1766 1128 2,464 2,297 3,608 445 31,822 106
Line D --- --- --- --- --- 783 310 1286 1,385 1,311 1,326 1,447 7,848 26
Others 49,665 46,583 53,617 48,364 32,333 30,785 28,086 25,639 25,879 37,827 38,659 45,407 462,844 1,543
TOTAL 67,691 65,945 71,194 67,066 45,461 47,455 42,034 41,545 36,014 43,154 53,312 49,068 62,560 2,092
Table H3. Monthly consumption (m3) of soft water in the plant (1995-1996)

Average
MONTH MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR TOTAL rate
(m3/day)
Boiler-1 ---- 1,007 2,078 1,689 1,829 1,612 438 423 217 1,298 1,648 1,735 13,973 47
Boiler-2 1,686 --- 308 313 315 32 100 1,576 1,399 3 --- 505 6,237 21
Cooling-1 4,309 3,936 -- 3,619 5,306 4,143 4,496 4,521 4,229 5,279 5,645 6,154 51,637 172
Cooling-2 3,699 3,519 3,469 3,472 2,929 1,462 4,159 6,949 4,350 1,889 2,204 2,265 40,366 135
Bottle Wshr.-A 10,397 14,573 11,793 12,554 6,620 6,517 8,484 9,235 9,154 7,769 9,443 12,608 119,147 397
Bottle wshr.- B 12,703 12,185 11,740 10,315 14,230 16,157 15,924 9,461 12,400 15,374 15,378 14,434 160,661 536
Bottle wshr.- D1 11,465 11,599 10,845 10,840 9,460 10,887 10,405 9,808 5,471 7,494 8,516 8,172 114,962 383
Bottle wshr.-D2 11,868 6,612 9,096 11,000 11,149 13,239 11,216 11,927 6,466 7,309 9,087 8,775 117,744 392
Line D 1,019 1,114 910 947 904 1,261 1,237 1,249 878 755 880 910 12,064 40
Post-mix 4,130 1,492 2,727 2,392 2,314 1,647 1,598 3,376 1,989 4 3,445 3,651 28,765 96
PET line 649 557 455 552 410 439 795 1,362 1,361 1,188 1,232 1,628 10,628 35
TOTAL 61,925 56,594 53,421 57,693 55,466 57,396 58,852 59,887 47,914 48,362 57,817 60,837 676,184 2,254

Table H4. Treated water consumption in cubic meters per month (1995-1996)

Average
MONTH MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR TOTAL rate
(m3/day)
Treatment Plant 1 11,251 8,764 361 8,908 5,575 1,676 7,328 14,597 14,652 5,347 4,424 13,191 96,074 320
Treatment Plant 2 11,717 12,661 15,341 8,785 6,840 8,366 10,637 2,623 7,553 14,739 17,764 15,179 132,205 441
Treatment Plant 3 9,720 9,309 11,334 10,384 9,061 12,302 11,295 15,914 9,629 12,974 16,500 11,153 139,575 465
TOTAL 32,688 30,734 27,036 28,077 21,476 22,344 29,260 33,134 31,834 33,060 38,688 39,523 367,854 1,226
 APPENDIX I
Table I1. On-line results of daily monitoring for WWTP influent flowrate (m3/d, 1995 - 1996)
Day APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
1 4055 1329 3528 4118 3864 4668 1060 3522 4163 358 3270 5246.3
2 4055 3432 3504 532 3617 4013 4742 3682 4344 2562 3655 3733.1
3 2814 3936 3792 3968 3797 3965 5400 6242 4344 3320 3532 921
4 5318 3408 3432 3381 3769 6670 4822 3403 4344 3583 2251 2729.6
5 6974 3528 3624 5180 3960 4873 3902 2663 4344 3528 3724 3476.4
6 --- 4437 4104 4799 4060 6244 5236 1214 4344 3724 3219 3291.6
7 --- 3552 3912 4152 4033 5395 4367 5234 4589 848 ---- 3747.1
8 4150 3792 3792 3753 3766 5419 657 3021 4786 2791 ---- 3925.1
9 --- 4032 3720 3124 5687 5290 3545.5 2808 3886 3184 9931 4121
10 --- 4992 3720 4576 4194 5230 5120 4864 937 3545 3498 694
11 4011 4872 3696 4341 4167 6077 3195 3636 3401 3523 ---- 3519
12 4264 4608 3384 2773 2953 5391 3646 533 4196 3397 5096.8 3540
13 5931 3744 3336 3800 3191 4089 6129 2770 4216 3357 3339.3 3201
14 --- 3768 3837 3632 4889 6080 3863 4709 3893 895 3564.3 ----
15 3570 4032 ---- 3674 5278 5815 3427 3045 1952 3784 3669.4 7170
16 --- 5256 ---- 750 3208 4345 4677 3811 4361 3453 --- 5019
17 --- 5184 ---- 2678 5810 3153 7356 4623 3061 3328 7233.6 2594.7
18 3876 6744 ---- 5072 8471 4873 5398 4796 4041 3467 3629.5 ----
19 3987 4608 ---- 4694 5629 5917 8052 2655 4515 3350 2014 7017.3
20 4080 3720 4339 3775 4070 3328 5334 3075 4017 3472 3940 3383.8
21 3456 2376 3700 3912 5965 4689 5253 3115 3847 1633 3859.5 3959
22 3096 3624 3781 3683 5228 5057 1214 2913 3522 2417 4852 4145.3
23 --- 3840 3902 4475 6248 4914 4013 4571 3646 4094 3576 4210.1
24 3408 3720 3725 3987 6284 3217 5417 4197 2988 3528 ---- 2051.2
25 4464 3864 3011 4973 7916 5260 4704 3716 4459 3265 5819 4112.5
26 4560 3096 3199 3821 11292 3076 3837 3017 4932 2814 3016 4461
27 5631 4968 4218 3324 2105 3304 5297 3341 5310 1042 4139.1 4271.6
28 4704 6096 3373 2396 6685 5005 4152 3450 5004 3442 3802 3955.4
29 4152 6696 3844 2875 5861 6294 1270 4293 5554 3604 ---- 4470.7
30 3792 6705 4142 2184 4195 3658 3278 4050 5457 3244 ---- 3560.1
31 --- 4104 ---- 3735 5035 ---- 5624 ---- 3751 3863 ---- ----

Total 94348 132063 92615 112137 155227 145309 133988 106969 126204 92415 94630.5 106527

81
*- Taken from manual readings of the flowmeters
Table I2. Comparison of computer and manual readings for WWTP influent flowrate
(m3/d, 1995 - 1996)

FLOWMETER 1 FLOWMETER 2
Manual Computer Deviation
Final Initial Volume Final Initial Volume TOTAL TOTAL (%)
MONTH meter meter (m3) meter meter (m3) (m3/mth) (m3/mth)
reading reading reading reading
AUG 109201.3 108237.0 964.3 789101.4 653592.7 135,508.7 136,473 155,227 12.1

SEP 110277.4 109201.3 1,076.1 905580.6 789101.4 116,479.2 117,553 145,309 19.1

OCT 113976.5 110277.4 3,699.1 1015973.0 905580.6 110,392.4 114,092 133,988 14.8

NOV 114058.1 113976.5 81.6 1110289.0 1015973.0 95,316.0 94,398 106,969 11.7

DEC 117042.2 114058.1 2,984.1 1202162.0 1110289.0 91,873.0 94,857 126,204 24.8

JAN 119671.2 117042.2 2,629 1299077.0 1202162.0 96,915.0 99,544 92,415 -7.7

FEB 142975.7 119671.2 23,304.5 1371003.0 1299677.0 71,326.0 94,630.5 --- ---

MAR 201230.6 142975.7 58,254.9 1424037.0 1375765.0 48,272.0 106,526.9 --- ---

82
 APPENDIX J

Microfiltration Polishing Unit

2500
2500 6290

2300 5800
Backwash
Backwash #1 Process Air In
CIP OUT #2
Filtrate Exhaust CIP OUTLET

2050

750
REAR
Feed Backwash Feed
Permeate
Control Air In

Permeate

Figure J. MEMCOR 60M10C

83
 APPENDIX K

Table K1. Installation and operating costs for MF/RO recovery system for one bottle washer unit

INSTALLATION COST1 4,200,000 Baht2

Microfiltration unit 2,400,000 Baht
Capacity - 10-12 m3/h
1,800,000 Baht
Reverse Osmosis unit
Capacity - 10 m3/h
DEPRECIATION COST3 350,000 Baht/yr
Useful life - 12 yrs
Salvage value - nil
SAVINGS 2,154,000 Baht/yr
3 1,066,500 Baht/yr
a. Soft water cost - 15 Baht/m
Volume of recovered water - 237 m3/d
Operating days - 300 d/yr
b. Volume of caustic soda recovered - 4.85 m3/d 732,000 Baht/yr
3
NaOH content - 35 kg/ m
Equivalent amount of 32% caustic solution - 530.5 kg
Price of 32% caustic solution - 4.60 Baht/kg
c. Wastewater treament cost - 5 Baht/ m3 355,500 Baht/yr
OPERATING COSTS 482,000 Baht/yr
a. Power 342,000 Baht/yr
MF power requirement- 5 kW - 68,400 Baht/yr
RO power requirement - 20 kW - 273,600 Baht/yr
Costs of power - 1.90 Baht/kW-h
Working hours- 24 hrs/day
Operating days -300 days /year
b. Membrane replacement cost 4 140,000 Baht/yr
(10% of installation cost)
NET ANNUAL SAVINGS 1,322,000 Baht/yr
NET PRESENT VALUE 5,500,000 Baht
PAYBACK PERIOD (Installation cost/Net annual savings) 3.2 years
INTERNAL RATE of RETURN 31.3 %
1
Installation cost inclusive of piping, framework and controls
2
25 Baht = 1 US$
3
Using straight-line basis on 12 yr useful life
4
Membrane replaceable every three years

84
 Table K2. Installation and operating costs for rinse water recovery by ion-exchange for one
bottle washer unit

INSTALLATION COST1 1,780,000 Baht2

Pre-filter dual-media (2 units) - 200,000 Baht per unit
Ion exchange columns (2 units) - 600,000 Baht per unit
DEPRECIATION COSTS3 148,333 Baht/yr
Useful life - 12 yrs
Salvage value - nil
SAVINGS 1,368,000 Baht/yr
a. Soft water cost - 15 Baht/m3 1,026,000 Baht/yr
Volume of recovered water - 228 m3/d
Operating days - 300 d/yr
b. Wastewater treament cost - 5 Baht/ m3 342,000 Baht/yr
OPERATING COSTS 694,483 Baht/yr
a. Power 68,400 Baht/yr
Total power requirement- 5 kW
Costs of power - 1.90 Baht/kW-h
Working hours- 24 hrs/day
Operating days -300 days /year
b. Resin replacement cost for the two units4 133,333 Baht/yr
Total volume of resin needed - 1,000 L
Price of resin - 400 Baht/L
c. Regeneration of resin 492,750 Baht/yr
Amount of 35% HCl required - 547.5 kg/day
Price of 35% HCl solution - 3 Baht/ kg
NET ANNUAL SAVINGS 525,184 Baht/yr
NET PRESENT VALUE 2,200,000 Baht
PAYBACK PERIOD 3.4 years
INTERNAL RATE of RETURN 30.5 %
1
Piping, framework and controls cost is 10% of total installation cost
2
25 Baht = 1 US$
3
Using straight-line basis on 12 yr useful life
4
Resin replaceable every three years

85