THE MECHANISM OF ORGANIC~

Post on 31-Jan-2022

4 Views

Category:

Documents

0 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

Transcript

©

\

THE MECHANISM OF ORGANIC~

REMOVAL DURING COAGULATION ~

by

J. L. BERSILLON, Geol. Eng., D. Eng.

A ThesisSubmitted to the School of Graduate Studiesin Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the DegreeDoctor of Philosophy

McMaster University

1983

J. L. Bersillon, 1983

~I

Il

1jl

iIi",,

l

!,

..,.j

II

\ .

THE MECHANISM OF ORGANIC

REMOVAL DURING COAGULATION

..

!

..

"

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (1983)(Civil Engineering)

..JMcMaster UniversityHamilton. Ontario

"The ~chanism ~f Organic Removal....During Coagulation

• TITLE:

AUTHOR:

SUPERVISOR:

'NUMBER OF PAGES:

\

Jean-Luc Bersi110nIngenieur Geo1ogueDocteur Ingenieur

Professor A. Benedek

xii, 188

i i

(Nancy. France)(Nancy, France)

"

. .

I

ABSTRACT

Coagulation is a common water treatme~t step pri-

mari ly designed to aggregate and thereby help remove t;:ue

particulate (turbidity causing) matter. Organic compounds

9f natural origin (i:e. humic and fulvic acids) have also

been observed to be',removed by Coagulation. This research

was designed primarily to identify the limittng mechanisms

responsible for the removal of natural organic~ by the coagu­

latjon process. This identjficationis thought to be crucial

in the optimization of this important water treatment step

as it may help to maximize the benefits obtained from coagu-

...The examination of the literature related to this

topic suggests two possible removal routes:

(i) a reaction whereby the fulvic acids form an

original compound with the coagulating ion3+Al or one of its hydroxy complexes.

(ii) the adsorption of the fulvic acid molecules or

jons 0 tp_the s~rface of a solid precipitating

indepen ently of these compounds.

These two possibilities are examined in detail on theoretical

grounds. and two ollowing pieces of information are defined

iii

J

as being discriminatory with respec~ to ~he two removal

routes:

( i )l

The shape of the isotherm, as defined in tygi-

cal adsorp~ion studies.

(ii) The ligand number or OH/Al ratio of the

pr~cipitate, accessible by processing the

dissolved Aluminum data with respect to pH.

These considerations lead tb an experimental. design

allowing the convenient evaluation- of these characteristics.

An array of nine treatment dosages and four operating pH is

applied on two raw waters, using four Aluminum based coagu-

lants.

The results suggest that under these experimentpl

conditions (dosage between .1 and I mM III/L1 pH betw€en 5

and 8.5), the Fulvic acids are removed by Adsorption onto

Al ("OH)3' regardless of the type of coagulant. Increoising pH and

·the presen'ce of SuI fate in the coagul ant were found detrimental

to this adsorption. Increasing OH/Al ratio in the coagulant

is detrimental at low,pH, low dosage, and becomes beneficial

at ~eutral to mi ld 1y•

alkaline pH conditions., A two stage. '.-C .

treatment scheme was found efficient at neutral to mildly

alkaline pH, ~sing Alum.

i v l

/

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank first my advisor. Dr. Andrew Benedek

for his encouragements 'all along this research. and the

. technical ~nd frnancia~ support he offe~ed me. Without him.

this research cou·ld not have been done. Dr. J. R. Kramer's

I: thank also Dr. J. Y. Bottero for

collaboration 'on the characterization of

was greatly apprefi~ted.

were also very helpf~l.

The discussions

the fulvic material

wi th D~.' T'5'ezos

-

keeping me informed of the developments of his research.

Thi~ helped me in developing the present experimental design.

T~e technical as~~stance provided by the personnel

of Zenon Envi ronmerital Company. specially John Bancsi. Henri-

Behmann; Heather Donison and Mary Pejic was very helpful.

I would like to thank also Evan Diamadopoulos and

Roberto Narbaitz for the many discussions we.nad. technical

or. 0 the rw i s e .'

, Last. but not least. Lorraine Oneschuk's typing

sUlls ~elped to put this work.in its final format. I

thank her for he!' patience.

"

v

,/

,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

I nt ro duc t ion

••Page

2 Literature Review2.1 Colour Causing Organics (

2.1.1 Nature and Occurrence2.1.2 Physical Chemical Properties2.).3 Reaction with Chlorine

2.2 Coagul ants -2.3 Aluminum Hydrolysis .

2.3.1 Hydrolysis of Soluble Species2.3.2 Complexation with Anion2.3.3 Precipitates2.3.4 Soluble .A1uminum Speciation

2.4 Organic-Aluminum Interplay -2.4.1 Reaction2.4.2 Adsorption '12.4.3 Coagulation

\

'. 3~-

4

Theoretical Expectations3.1 Possible Removal Pathways3.2 .The ,Reaction Hypothesis

3.2.1 General Considerations3.2,2 Straight Reaction3.2.3 Coprecipitation3.2.4 Formation' of an Irreversible

Precipitate3.3 The Adsorption,Hypoth~sis

3.3.1 TheLiga.ndNumber3.3.2 The Precipitate Loading

3.3.2.1 Most Usual Isotherm, EquationsI 3.3.2.2 Special Cases

3.3.2.3 Heterogeneity of the,Fu1vates

3.4 Significant Dependent Variables

Ex~erimental Methods4. Raw Waters Origin and Storage

.4.1.1 Fauquier Raw l/ater4.1.2 Distilled \later4.1.3 Fauquier Diluted Water4.1.4 Blanks

"

5567

1213151523242828293134

3535353539434~

44444546

4752

52

535353535454

-.

vi

Chapter

'.

54545557575859596161636364

66" 67

6772828~8695959698

9898

101105109109114...

.Page

pHSulfatethe

Reagents and Coagulants4.2.1 Stock Solutions4.~.2 Coagulant Operating SolutionsThe Jar Test Method .4~3.l Equipment4:3.2' Operating ConditionsSpecific Methods of Investigation4.4.1 Reversibility4.4.2 Kinetics4.4.3 Double TreatmentAnalytical Methods4.5.1 Equipment ..4.5.2 Measurements

4.5

4.4

4.3

4.2

Results and Discussion5:1 Ligand Number and Solubility

, 5.1.1 Caiculation of A13+ Activity5.1.2 Results5.1.3 Discussion

5.'2 Organic Removal5.2.1 Isotherms5.2.2 Influencing Factors

5.2.2.1 The Influence of5.2.2?2 The Influence of5.2.2.3 The Influence of

OH/Al ratio5.2.3 Discussion

5.,.3.1 Reversibility5.2'.3.2 Kinetics

5.2.4 Tentative Modelling5.3 Practical Impl ications

5.3.1 Double Treatment5.3:2 Precipitate Separability

5

I

(

l6 . Conclusions

7

·References

tor Further Research.lcatlon-o t e sorption ModelTreatment Process

116

11 9119120

121

Appendices

A. 1A.2

- Aluminum Determination MethodCharacterization of Colour Causing OrganicsA.2.l Iden!ification ~ the Material

129131131

vii

1./\).... -

Appendices' Page

A.2.2 1 em 10 cm DOC Correlation 133A254 nm/ A254 nm -A'. 2 . 3 Amounts.of DOC in the Raw Wa~ers , 135A.2.4 Discussion 135A.2 .5 References 140

A.3 General Observations 141A. 3. 1 Residual Organics 141A. 3.2 Residual Aluminum 148A.3.3 Physical Characteristics of the 151

PrecipitatesA.3.4 References 160

A.4 FRW Jar Test Results 161A.5 FDW Jar Test Results • 171A.6 Blank Runs Results 177A.7 Computer Programs 182

I

-.

j

vii i

.-

LIdT OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1 Place of the Coagulation Process inWater Treatment Plant

3,

2.1 Aluminum Speciation Diagram afterMay et al (1979)

19I

2.2 Aluminum Speciation Diagram afterParks (1972)

20

3. 1

3.2

Di fferent Removal Routes

Graphical Representation of the DispersionBrought by Fulvate Heterogeneity ."

36

42

3.3 Ionic Distribution Near the Surface(After Davis. 1980)

49

."

87

60

. 62

Adsorption Isotherms as a' Function of pH.FRW.Alum Runs

Modified Jar Test Schedule for theKinetic Experiment

-lo9[A1 3+] as a Function of pH = Blank Runs 74

-log[~13+] as a Function of pH = Blank Runs 77

-lo9[A1 3+1 as a Function of pH = FRW Runs 79

-log[A1 3+] as a Function of pH = FRW Runs 80

-log[A1 3+] as a Function of pH = FDW Runs 81

Jar Test Time Frame4. 1

4.2

5" 1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5" 5

5.6

"

\

".

5. 7

5.8

Adsorption Isotherms as a Function of pHFRW .. A1C1 3 Runs

Adsorption Isotherms as a Function of pHFRW.Alpo1 Runs

88

89

/'

Adsorption Isotherms as a Function of pHFRW.Alge1 Runs

ix-

90

Fi gu re

5.10

I

.•

Adsorption Isotherms as a Function of pH.FDW.Alum Runs-

E..age

92

5. 12

Adsorption Isotherms as a Function of pH. 93FDW.Al C1 3 Rims

2-Influence of S04 on the Residual Organics. 97Al doyage = 0.5 mM/L

5. 13

5.14

5.15

A2 . l'

A2.2

A2.3

A2.4

A3.1

,A3.2

A3.3

A3.4

A3.5

A3.6

pH as.a Function of Time,Mixing Time20 mn

pH as a Function of Time. Mixing Time200 mn

DOC as a Function of Time

Organics Light Absorption Spectra

UV Abso~bance as a Function of FRWDilution

UV Absorbance - DOC Correlation forFRW Experiments

OV Absorbance - DOC Correlation forFQW Expe ri men ts

Remaining DOC as a Function of AlumDosage and pl:!. Case of FRW

Remaining DOC as a Function of A1C1 3"Dosage and pH. Case of FRW

Remaining DOC as a Function of A1po1Dosage' and pH., C,ase of FRW

Remaining DOC as a Function of A1ge1Dosage and pH. Case of FRW ..

Remaining DOC as a F~nction of AlumDosage and pH. Case of.FDW

,RlW.Iilining DOC as a Function of A1C1 3Dosage and pH. Case of FDW

x•

,102

103

, -104,'

134­

13p\

137

138

14"2

143

144

145

146

147

..,

xi

(

Table

2. 1

5. 1

5.2....

5. 3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5 .8

LIST OF TA8LES

Solubility Products [H+]3/[A1 3+] forthe Formation of Al (OH) 3

Characteristics of the Ions Used inthe Calculation of the Activity ofA13+ (after Truesdell et al, 19T4)

Reactions Accounted for in the Calcula­tion of the Activity of A13+, andCorresponding Mass Action Law Constants

Slopes and Correlation CoefficientsDetermined by Linear RegressionAnalysis of log[A13+] vs pH

. . 3+Averages of the Ionic Product -1og[Al ]-3 pH as a Function of the Coagulant andthe Raw Water

Non Removable Fraction (X DOC o ) in FRW,and FDW, as a Function of the pH andthe Coagulant Nature

•Results of the ,Reversibility Experiment,Using Alum as Coagulant

Parameter Estimates for the FulvateAdsorption, Data ~

Double Treatment Experiments

,.

xii

"Page

26

70

73

83

84

94

100

,~

108

112

.\

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The natural water bodies constitute the water

supply of all living communities. The human cOr:1munities

tap these resources for their needs, and most of the time,

this natural water must be treated to.fit to their use.

Among other undesirable substances, organic pollu-

tants are the target of the water treatment. These com-

pounds occur in most natural water sources. Natural

organics originate in soils, where part of them is dis-

solved by rain. These soil compounds referred to as humic

material, are responsible for the yellow to brown colour

of the marsh waters, as well as some river waters. On the

other hand, specific organic compounds found in natural

waters result directly from man's activity.

The need for the removal of these substances comes

from either ae'sthetic considerations (colour, taste, odour)

or their potential impact on public health. In recent

years, an increasing concern about'drinkingwater quality. .

promoted a research effort aimed at a better application

of the physical chemical treatment op.erations·through a

be~ter understanding of their underlying principles. These

1

2

procedures include Activated Carbon Adsorption, and several

chemical oxidation processes.

Interestingly, the most widely used treatment process,

i.e. coagulation - flocculation, received but little attep­

tion as a potentially powerful process for removing soluble

organic contaminants. Although the interaction between

coagulants and the humic material has been investigated to

some extent, there is still a definite research need in this

area, especially regarding naturally coloured waters, as

outlined in a recent AWWA Committee Report (1979). On an

engineering point of view,' a better understanding of the

phenomena involved in the organic removal by the coagulation

process should lead to the formulation of a model. Th~s,

\modelization constitutes an essential tool, for the optimi-

zation of the process, and ultimately to the improvement of

the performances of-the process.

Such an improvement has consequences on all the

physical chemical processes involved in a water treatment

plant since the coagulation is the first step in this treat­

ment, as shown in Figure 1-1. This statement has a special

value when Activated tarbon Adsorption is used. Assuming

that at equal cost, an improved coagulation process allows/--:

to increase the organic removal by this operation fr9m 75%

to 80%, a 5% improvement may look marginal. However, for

the subsequent finishing steps (GAC filtration, ozonation

top related