Han Gu, Julio Polanco, Ken P. Ishida, Megan H. Plumlee, Michael Boyd, Erik Desormeaux, Graham J. G. Juby, Mojtaba Farrokh Shad
{"title":"两种浓缩物处理技术的渗透质量、高级氧化工艺的可处理性和成本,以提高饮用水回用的回收率","authors":"Han Gu, Julio Polanco, Ken P. Ishida, Megan H. Plumlee, Michael Boyd, Erik Desormeaux, Graham J. G. Juby, Mojtaba Farrokh Shad","doi":"10.2166/wrd.2023.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Closed circuit reverse osmosis (CCRO) and forward osmosis-RO (FO-RO) were evaluated at a pilot scale to generate additional permeate from RO concentrate – achieving a recovery of 61% for CCRO and 35% for FO-RO – at a full-scale advanced water purification facility. This study assessed permeate water quality, suitability of the permeate for treatment by an ultraviolet-advanced oxidation process (UV-AOP), and cost/footprint for a conceptual 10- or 20-mgd system. Both technologies demonstrated inorganic, organic, and microbiological constituent removal suitable for blending with primary RO permeate. Virus challenge testing with MS coliphage demonstrated greater than 5-log removal by both technologies. Pilot-scale UV/hydrogen peroxide AOP treatment of CCRO or FO-RO permeate yielded similar performance (∼1.4-log N-nitrosodimethylamine removal and ∼0.5-log 1,4-dioxane removal) as the full-scale UV-AOP that treats the RO permeate from the purification facility. The estimated full-scale total unit cost (capital plus operation and maintenance costs) of product water produced by the two technologies was estimated to range from $0.91 to $1.12 per cubic meter, depending on the design flow rate of RO concentrate treated, and is estimated to be similar between the two technologies given the +50%/–30% expected accuracy of the Class 5 cost estimate.","PeriodicalId":34727,"journal":{"name":"Water Reuse","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Permeate quality, advanced oxidation process treatability, and cost for two concentrate treatment technologies to enhance recovery for potable reuse\",\"authors\":\"Han Gu, Julio Polanco, Ken P. Ishida, Megan H. Plumlee, Michael Boyd, Erik Desormeaux, Graham J. G. Juby, Mojtaba Farrokh Shad\",\"doi\":\"10.2166/wrd.2023.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Closed circuit reverse osmosis (CCRO) and forward osmosis-RO (FO-RO) were evaluated at a pilot scale to generate additional permeate from RO concentrate – achieving a recovery of 61% for CCRO and 35% for FO-RO – at a full-scale advanced water purification facility. This study assessed permeate water quality, suitability of the permeate for treatment by an ultraviolet-advanced oxidation process (UV-AOP), and cost/footprint for a conceptual 10- or 20-mgd system. Both technologies demonstrated inorganic, organic, and microbiological constituent removal suitable for blending with primary RO permeate. Virus challenge testing with MS coliphage demonstrated greater than 5-log removal by both technologies. Pilot-scale UV/hydrogen peroxide AOP treatment of CCRO or FO-RO permeate yielded similar performance (∼1.4-log N-nitrosodimethylamine removal and ∼0.5-log 1,4-dioxane removal) as the full-scale UV-AOP that treats the RO permeate from the purification facility. The estimated full-scale total unit cost (capital plus operation and maintenance costs) of product water produced by the two technologies was estimated to range from $0.91 to $1.12 per cubic meter, depending on the design flow rate of RO concentrate treated, and is estimated to be similar between the two technologies given the +50%/–30% expected accuracy of the Class 5 cost estimate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Water Reuse\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Water Reuse\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2166/wrd.2023.002\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Water Reuse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2166/wrd.2023.002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Permeate quality, advanced oxidation process treatability, and cost for two concentrate treatment technologies to enhance recovery for potable reuse
Closed circuit reverse osmosis (CCRO) and forward osmosis-RO (FO-RO) were evaluated at a pilot scale to generate additional permeate from RO concentrate – achieving a recovery of 61% for CCRO and 35% for FO-RO – at a full-scale advanced water purification facility. This study assessed permeate water quality, suitability of the permeate for treatment by an ultraviolet-advanced oxidation process (UV-AOP), and cost/footprint for a conceptual 10- or 20-mgd system. Both technologies demonstrated inorganic, organic, and microbiological constituent removal suitable for blending with primary RO permeate. Virus challenge testing with MS coliphage demonstrated greater than 5-log removal by both technologies. Pilot-scale UV/hydrogen peroxide AOP treatment of CCRO or FO-RO permeate yielded similar performance (∼1.4-log N-nitrosodimethylamine removal and ∼0.5-log 1,4-dioxane removal) as the full-scale UV-AOP that treats the RO permeate from the purification facility. The estimated full-scale total unit cost (capital plus operation and maintenance costs) of product water produced by the two technologies was estimated to range from $0.91 to $1.12 per cubic meter, depending on the design flow rate of RO concentrate treated, and is estimated to be similar between the two technologies given the +50%/–30% expected accuracy of the Class 5 cost estimate.