-
Ozone Water Purification
Engineering Senior Project
Final Written Report 5-11-07
May 2007 Engineering Senior Project
Composed by student project members: Jennifer Clay Mechanical
Engineering Concentration Messiah College Stephanie Koplar
Mechanical Engineering Concentration Messiah College
Advised By:
Dr. Timothy Whitmoyer Engineering Department Messiah College Dr.
Donald Pratt Engineering Department Messiah College
Ray Diener President of Elizabethtown Crystal Pure Water Ariela
Vader Biology Department Messiah College
In Cooperation with
Natural Sciences Water for the World The Collaboratory Central
America Team Water for the World The Collaboratory
-
Table of Contents
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...………3
1.1 Abstract
1.2 Water Problems in Honduras
1.3 Meeting the Problem
1.4 Literature Review
1.5 Solution
2 Original Design…………………………………………………………………………..…9
2.1 Specifications
2.2 Design Components
2.3 System Testing
2.4 Documentation
3 Implementation……………………………………………………………………………12
3.1 Construction
3.2 Testing and Redesign
3.3 Operation
4 Schedule…………………………………………………………………………………...20
4.1 Gantt Chart
5 Budget……………………………………………………………………………………...21
6 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………..22
6.1 Objective Comparison
6.2 General Comparison
7 Future Work………………………………………………………………………………..23
7.1 General Advice
7.2 Further Research
7.3 Further Testing and Documentation
7.4 Trip Tasks
7.5 Future Design
References……………………………………………………………………………………..25
Appendices
2
-
1. Introduction
1.1 Abstract
This water purification system uses ozone as the method of
disinfection, and was designed as a demonstration model. The system
is designed to overcome water quality problems (mainly bacteria)
that a team sponsored by The Collaboratory for Strategic
Partnership and Applied Research encountered in rural areas of
Honduras (WFTW Honduras 2006 trip report). In conjunction with
producing clean drinking water, this system also addresses
investment costs, maintenance costs, and ease of use, among other
factors.
The project team members are Jennifer Clay and Stephanie Koplar,
mechanical engineering seniors at Messiah College. The project
faculty advisors were Dr. Timothy Whitmoyer and Dr. Donald Pratt.
Ariela Vader, Messiah College Faculty and Ray Diener, president of
Elizabethtown Crystal Pure Water also advised this project. This
project is done in cooperation with the Natural Science and Central
America teams of Water for the World within The Collaboratory for
Strategic Partnership and Applied Research.
1.2 Water Problems in Honduras
Many communities in Honduras do not have access to clean
drinking water. They experience numerous problems and sicknesses
associated with unsanitary water supplies including illnesses such
as Hepatitis. Many water-related problems such as diarrhea are so
common that Honduran people treat them as part of daily life, and
would not consider these ailments sicknesses. Testing of their
water showed that their water contains bacteria, which could be the
cause of most, if not all of their water-related illnesses.
Another issue that the Honduran people face is dirt in their
water. They recognize that water containing dirt is unhealthy and
are forced to spend large amounts of money buying bottled water
instead of using the municipal water source.
A third item regarding the Honduran water that needs to be
addressed is its taste. Many of the community members choose to get
their drinking water from a local tad pole infested “spring”
because they like the taste of that water better than the municipal
water.
1.3 Meeting the Need Purpose
In response to the problem of contaminated water in Honduras, we
decided to design a small prototype water treatment system. The
system would be capable of handling the water quality problems
encountered by The Collaboratory team in rural regions of Honduras,
and would be used as a demonstration tool to help educate the
Honduran people about water purification and expose them to water
treatment using ozone. This project was to be an initial step in
designing an ozone water purification system that could eventually
be implemented in a rural community in Honduras.
3
-
Benefit of Clean Water Drinking unclean water causes countless
sicknesses and deaths throughout the
world. This is a very significant problem for communities that
do not have access to clean water sources. Drinking clean water
allows people to avoid harmful water bourn ailments. Consuming
water free of bacteria and other harmful contaminants reduces
sickness and allows people to live healthy lives. Some of the
benefits of health include an increase in productivity, as well as
an increase in the quality of life.
Choosing between alternatives
Because the need for clean water is universal, there are several
water purification methods available on the market today. The most
prominent ones include chlorine, ultraviolet light, reverse
osmosis, and ozone. We have chosen to use ozone for several
reasons. Ozone based systems are less technically complicated and
less expensive than reverse osmosis systems, which makes it more
applicable for the people in Honduras. Unlike chlorine which has a
considerable contact time to oxidize and destroy microorganisms,
ozone oxidation begins immediately after contact with the
microorganism’s cell membrane wall (Cruver 33). Biozone’s website
stated that disinfecting with 1 ppm chlorine at a water temperature
of 59°F and a pH value of 7 will require a retention time of 75
minutes. The disinfection efficiency achieved will be 99.9 percent.
Ozonating the same water sample with ozone and achieving a
disinfection efficiency of 99.9 percent using the same temperature
and pH and a concentration of 1 mg/l ozone will require a retention
time of only 57 seconds (www.biozone.com). Another benefit is
ozone’s short half life which allows the unstable gas to convert
back to oxygen in about 30 minutes which makes it safer than many
disinfectants which stay in the water. Ozone also has intrinsic
properties that can reduce color and odor of the water. Although
initially the ozone may produce a smell, because of its short half
life, the ozone will quickly dissipate unlike chorine which has a
much longer half life. When ozone reverts back to O2, it improves
the freshness of the water. Ozone also flocculates, or amasses
various kinds of sediment and oxidizes metals, allowing them to be
easily removed by filtration. Ozone has the ability to penetrate
and break down the cell walls of bacterium, and deactivate harmful
contaminates. Because of its ability to purify the water from a
wide range of bacterium, ozone eliminates the need for chemicals
that may be harmful to one’s body. Ozone can also provide residual
disinfection aiding in the sanitation of water containers.
1.4 Literature Review
Currently, there are several ozone based purification systems.
Four systems are listed below; the first two are dealing with the
same volume that we may experience, and the last two are large
scale items, but similar in theory. The purpose for our model is
for demonstration purposes only, and therefore must be compact and
portable. We also need our system to be relatively inexpensive.
1. The closest existing state of the art system that we found is
made by Ozone Solutions and can be found on their website: . The
H2O Mini
4
http://www.biozone.com/http://www.ozoneapplications.com/products/H2O-Mini.htm
-
Injection System weighs about 18 pounds and has a flow rate of
approximately 1.5gpm. The water first passes through a mesh filter
and then using a venturi, ozone is injected into the water. The
cost of this system is $2,525 including an ozone generator and an
air dryer. A picture of the model and description of its components
can be seen below:
Photo 1 - H2O Mini Injection System by Ozone Solutions
2. Another existing portable model using ozone is made by Vortex
Water Technologies. A description and picture of their system is as
follows:
The self-cleaning Vortex® Water Machine produces clean, clear
water from almost any source without using chemicals. The
purification system goes beyond simple filtration, using a patented
five-way process that catalyzes ozone by UV light, destroying
contaminants while infusing the water with fresh oxygen. The
self-contained system may be installed above or below counters, or
wall mounted with an optional kit to install a dedicated faucet.
Self-regulated flow rate is up to 0.5 gpm, resulting in low
maintenance cost of under $0.07 per gallon. The unit is 5.9 x 17.5
(150 x 445 mm) and weighs five pounds (2.2 kg) when empty. The slim
design makes the machine a stylish addition to any home.
Photo 2 - Vortex® Water Machine by Vortex Water Technologies
5
-
3. Another existing state-of-the-art system is made by
WaterChef, Inc. The cost of this system is $49,900. Although this
model deals with higher volume applications producing approximately
15,000 gallons per day, the process is very similar to our system.
The schematic for this system can be seen in our appendix. 4. Am
also makes a larger scale application which can be found on the
internet site :< http://www.watertanks.com/article/1760/>.
This system uses a different injection method. Instead of using a
venturi to pull air across a UV light by creating a vacuum, this
model uses an air pump to push air past the UV light.
Photo 3 - Water system by Pure Water
See Appendices for a comparison of our objectives with these
state-of-the-art systems. 1. 5 Solution
Many of the water purification systems we discovered through our
research were larger systems requiring large tanks. We have decided
to design a small point of use system using ozone to disinfect the
water. Although the system is similar to the first one in our lit
review it is significantly cheaper and uses the capabilities of
both ozone and ultraviolet light to disinfect the water. We choose
to design a small system without cumbersome tanks so that it can be
transported and used to demonstrate the theory of using ozone to
disinfect water to the people of Honduras.
Objectives
The following are the objectives we wrote for our system, to
make sure that it was operating properly, and would provide a
solution to the problem we were addressing. • To build a prototype
water treatment system to reduce the level of Fecal Coliform
in the water to show positive for coliform in less than 5.0% of
the samples This is the EPA water standard with regard to bacterial
contamination. We wanted to meet the EPA standard to ensure the
water was properly disinfected. • To build a prototype water
treatment system to reduce the level of turbidity to less
than .5 NTU (nephelolometric turbidity units)
6
http://www.watertanks.com/article/1760/
-
Readings of turbidity must be less than .5 NTU to meet the EPA
standard for turbidity. We wanted to meet this standard to ensure
the water is safe to drink. • To build a prototype water treatment
system that will produce 1 gallon of pure
water in a 30 minute period. Originally we had an objective of
2-5 gallons per minute flow rate. After assessing the purpose and
requirements of our water purification system we changed our flow
rate objective to be in terms of quantity of water, realizing that
the quantity of water we could produce was more important for a
demonstration system like the one we intended to build. • To create
operational and maintenance manuals for the system that have a
Flesch-Kincaid grade level of less than 9.0 according to
Microsoft Word We wanted to produce documentation to accompany our
system that would be reasonable for the education level we might
experience. Ninth grade is generally when the Honduras people begin
to study a specific field. We wanted to produce documentation that
a person with a general education level in Honduras could
understand. • To build a prototype water purification system
weighing less than 50lbs. The system needed to be broken down and
taken on the plane with us to HondWe set the we
uras. ight limit at 50 pounds to ensure it would meet the
airline weight
nd the people do not have the same financial resources that we
are accustomed to.
Projec below.
s of disinfection. The purification system consists of the
following stages.
article filter
7. 1 hour wait period
restrictions. • To build a prototype water purification system
that costs less than $300. We wanted to keep the cost of the system
as low as possible to ensure it would be practical for the Honduras
people, recognizing Honduras is a developing country a
t Description A basic overview of our final system design and
its components is given
The water purification system uses ozone and UV light as the
method
1. 20 x 20 mesh screen 2. 20 micron particle filter3. 5 micron
p4. UV Light 5. Carbon filter 6. Ozone injection
7
-
8
Figure 1 - Schematic of final system design
Water Pump
A water pump is needed to create the pressure to pump the water
through the system. Particle Filtration
A 20x20 mesh screen works in conjunction with 20 and 5
micro-pore sized filters to remove particles from the water stream.
UV Light
The water passes directly across an UV light which changes the
DNA of the bacteria and keeps them from reproducing. This ensures
bacterial decontamination. Carbon Filtration
A standard block carbon filter is used to improve the taste and
odor of the water. Ozone Generation
Ozone is generated by the passage of air across an ultra violet
(UV) light which converts the oxygen (O2) in the air into ozone
(O3). The ozone will provide residual disinfection and improve the
taste of the water by adding oxygen to it. Ozone Injection
The method of ozone injection in to the water stream is venturi
injection. By a change in pipe diameter, there is a pressure drop
in the venturi which creates a vacuum causing air to pass across
the UV light and be injected into the water stream.
-
Ozone Contact Time Requirements A certain amount of time is
required for the dissolved ozone to interact with the
contaminants in the water and thus disinfect the water. This
time is known as the contact time. According to a Ken Mow at
Ozotech Inc., an approximation of the ozone concentration contact
time required is given by the equation: C*t=1.6 where C is the
concentration of ozone in milligrams per liter of water, and t is
the contact time in minutes. Since ozone is injected as the final
stage of the system, the consumer will have to wait a given amount
of time before using the water for it to be completely disinfected.
According to our experimentation, the contact time required is at
least 20 minutes (see “Testing and Redesign” in the Implementation
section). However, the user should wait an entire hour for the
ozone to dissipate and revert back into oxygen. Waiting the
additional time will ensure that no ozone will be tasted in the
water. The dissipation of ozone follows an exponential curve with a
half life of 20 minutes. Power Supply
Power is needed for the UV light within the ozone generator as
well as an electric water pump. The system components will run off
of standard AC power (standard US and Honduran wall outlets).
2. Original Design
2.1 Specifications The following are the design specifications
we came up with to make sure the
system does what we need it to. • System will fit within a
volume of 10 cubic feet • System will weigh less than 75 pounds •
System will use Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) parts found in the
US. • System will deactivate 1 fecal coliform per 1ml of water •
System will reduce Turbidity to less than 5 NTU (nephelolometric
turbidity units) • System will have a flow rate of 1-5 gallons per
minute • System will cost less than $400 • UV light should be
replaced once a year • The pump should be replaced every 5 years •
The tank should be replaced every 10 years • The venturi should be
replaced every 5 years • The filters should be replaced when the
back pressure doubles indicating
clogged filters • System should be checked once a month to
ensure that the water is being
purified • There will be clear instructions to check the
indicator light on the generator to
prevent water from running through the system without ozone
being injected.
9
-
10
2.2 Basic Design
Our original design is as follows: 1. Screen 2. Ozone injected
into the water 3. Water enters contact tank 4. 20 Micron particle
filtration 5. 5 Micron particle filtration 6. Carbon filtration
Figure 2 - Schematic of original system design
2.3 Design Components
The following are descriptions of the original components we
purchased for our system.
Generator
For many reasons explained in our Engineering Design Report
(EDR) we decided to use an ultraviolet light to generate the ozone
in our application. The original generator we purchased was the
Purezone UV5X. It is specified to produce 125mg/hr, and has
dimensions of 12”x4”x2”. The UV light bulb has an expected lifetime
of 10,000 hours. The cost of this unit is $125. The air inlet
consists of 3 small holes. The outlet is attached to an ozone
resistant tube with an inner diameter or ¼ inch.
Injector
We chose a venturi injector from Mazzei Injector Corporation.
The model we chose was the 384x, made of ozone resistant Kynar with
½ water inlet and outlet, ¼ inch ozone inlet. See EDR for
justification and appendices for performance tables.
-
Filtration The components we used for filtration are listed
below. See the EDR for further
explanation. • Y strainer, 20x20 stainless steel mesh • 10” 20
micron polypropylene filter• 10” 5 micron polypropylene filter •
10” Carbon Block filter
Pumcal plumbing store called R.F. Fager
Company. The specifications are as follows:
w pump level
’ power cord • 90 day limited warrantee
2.3 Sy
p
We bought Zoeller Impeller pump from a lo
• Model 311 • 115 volts single phase / 60 Hz • Transfers up to
337 gallons per hour • Lifts water from 15 feet belo• Garden hose
connections • Includes an extra impeller and gasket • 6’ hose with
strainer and 6
stem Testing In our original plan we intended to perform several
tests to gain a better
understanding of the system, change design flaws, and prove our
systems ability todisinfect water. Short descriptions of the tests
we originally planned on performing are giv
en below; see the Engineering Design Report for more information
on these tests.
Fecal
efore and after purification to show the systems affect on
waterborne bacteria.
Turbid
ts quantify the cloudiness of the water and thus, the capability
of the particle filters.
Contat
cal er the water has been in contact with the ozone for
certain
amounts of time.
Coliform Testing Fecal Coliform plates were used to quantify the
disinfection capabilities of the
system. The water was tested b
ity Testing Turbidity tests were performed using a
spectrophotometer on water samples
before and after they are treated by our system. These tes
ct Time Testing Testing was performed to determine how long it
takes for the ozone to disinfec
the water, eliminating the fecal coliform. These tests were
performed using FeColiform plates aft
11
-
3. Implementation
ction produce the final
design setup can be seen in the appendices.
.1Con
Our final design changed quite a bit from the original design
above. This sedescribes some of the process that we went through in
order to design. The final 3 struction
Constructing the prototype is simply a matter of connecting the
pre-manufacturedcomponents in the proper order. Refer to the
appendices for pictures of the components in this description. A
picture of our final setup can also be found in
the s the steps of how to connect our final design.
to 5 micron filter*
t
fitting**
tubing clamp tightly around tube every time tubing is connected
to a
3.2
appendices. The following show
Connect the following: 1. Y screen to inlet of pump 2. 20 micron
filter with tubing to outlet of pump* 3. 20 micron filter with
tubing4. 5 micron filter to UV light 5. UV light to Carbon filter*
6. Carbon filter to venturi inle7. L to venturi outlet** 8. Male to
male fitting to L** 9. Second L to male to male fitting** 10.
Second male to male fitting to second L** 11. Union with screen to
second male to male12. 4 foot long tube to union for water outlet
13. Ozone generator to gas inlet of venturi *note follow filter
housing directions labeled on lid **note venturi, L’s, male
fittings, and union comprise the S-configuration shown in apendices
-Fasten metal barbed fitting
Testing and Redesign
After testing our system, we realized that many problems had to
be overcome before we would have a working model. This section
describes some of the problems we encountered, and what steps we
took to overcome these problems in order to meet our
objectives.
Our first fecal coliform tests seem to imply that our system
without the contact tank was purifying the water. Along with a
desire to keep the system simple and to have an “on demand” system,
these results made us believe that a contact tank wasunnecessary
for our system. However, these results were never repe
atable which
may have been a result of bad plates, or just a random
occurrence.
12
-
Testing 3/9/2007 5:15pmResults 3/10/2007 6:55pmOrientation 384x,
Purezone, 20u, 5u, carbon
% sample Pre Post % Reduction100 120 0 100100 235 2 99.15
FC/mL
Table 1- Fecal Coliform results using the original orientation.
These results were unrepeatable. After doing more fecal coliform
tests with the original configuration (minus the
contact tank), we recognized that our system was unable to
consistently disinfect the water. Our objective was to reduce the
fecal coliform 100%. We were getting maximum FC reduction results
between 81-85%. See the charts below for more detail:
Testing 3/11/2007 8:15pmResults 3/12/2007 10:15pmOrientation:
384x, Purezone, 20u, 5u, carbon
% sample Pre Post % Reduction100 16 6 81.25
FC/mL
Table 2 - First unacceptable Fecal Coliform results using
original orientation
Testing 3/26/2007 7-9pmResults 3/27/2007 9:15pmOrientation:
384x, Purezone, 20u, 5u, carbon
% sample Pre Post %Reduction100 20 3 85.00
FC/mL
Table 3 - Second unacceptable Fecal Coliform results using
original orientation
After considering the low reduction rates, we observed the ozone
smell of our
system and postulated that there was not enough ozone being
injected into the water to handle the bacteria in the water (which
had a relatively low initial count of fecal coliform). We reasoned
that the three filters in series caused too much back pressure at
the venturi outlet which decreased the suction rate and ultimately
decreased the amount of ozone injected. We performed several tests
rearranging the configuration of the system, trying to determine by
smell when we were creating more ozone. We experimented with
orientations that took out one or more filters or reoriented the
tubing around the venturi to see if any of that made a difference.
The smell of ozone significantly increased when we only had two
filters in the system instead of three. (See logbooks for more
process details). These tests were done simply to understand the
effect of back pressure on the ozone injection rate and were not
necessarily intended for implementation. In conjunction with this
knowledge of back pressure effects, we decided to move the 20
micron filter before the venturi, leaving the other two filters
after the venturi in an attempt to decrease
13
-
the back pressure. We did notice a slight increase in the
intensity of the ozone smell.
Because we presumed that a lack of ozone in our water was the
source of our disinfection problem, we decided to buy tests that
would quantify the amount of ozone in our water stream. We
purchased two types of tests, one uses a visual comparison method
(Ozone Solutions Vacuviales – see appendices) and the other set of
tests uses reagents which are compared in a colorimeter and then
output a given result (Hach reagents – see appendices). We were
able to borrow a colorimeter from the Chemistry Department to read
the given ozone concentration.
Initially, we only had the Vacuviales available for use and our
original results using these tests showed no dissolved ozone in the
water stream. We then tested for ozone concentrations with just the
pump and ozone injection and although we were able to smell the
ozone, we were still unable to get readings for dissolved
ozone.
We contacted Ozone Solutions, our vacuvial manufacturer, and
asked one of their representatives why we were unable to get
dissolved ozone results even though we smelled it. We were told
that UV based ozone generators are not nearly as efficient as
corona ozone generators, and this may be the reason we were not
getting enough ozone. We were also told that a concentration of
only .02 ppm would yield smell and that smelling ozone does not
necessarily mean that the ozone has been dissolved into the water.
There is a difference between ozone in gaseous form and ozone that
is dissolved in the water stream. Although we could detect the
smell of ozone, this measurement was misleading because an increase
in the ozone smell does not directly correlate to an increase in
the amount of ozone dissolved.
This led us to rethink our components and system configuration.
Based on our design calculations, the amount of ozone generation
our generator was capable of (125mg of O3/hr) should have yielded
about .55 ppm, assuming 100% of the ozone is dissolved into the 1
gpm water stream. For this reason we contacted the ozone generator
manufacturer, Purezone, to find out at what suction rate this
specification was for so that we could rearrange our system and
compare suction rates, but they were unable to tell us.
In order to characterize an approximate suction rate, we began
to take pressure measurements, comparing them with the performance
tables for the venturi to analyze our corresponding suction rates.
After doing some pressure testing, we found that we were generating
approximately a 61% pressure drop across the venturi with an inlet
pressure of around 10 psi. After speaking with Mazzei, our venturi
manufacturer, we were told that at these low operating pressures
that we would need a pressure difference greater than 75% to
generate a decent suction rate. According to the pressure tables
provided by Mazzei, (see table for 384-x model of venturi in
appendices) our pressure difference would only generate
approximately .4 SCFH using a high pressure of 10 psi and a low
pressure of 5 psi. These are approximate values of the average
pressures seen below. After talking to Mazzei we thought this may
be a little low, but we were unsure of how this compared to the
correct suction rate for a maximum ozone generation since none was
provided by Purezone.
14
-
Pressure Testing4/5/2007Orientation: 20u/384x/Purezone/5u/carbon
filter
HI LOW10.25 3.90 61.959.60 3.80 60.429.25 3.70 60.00
AVG 9.70 3.80 60.82
Pressure (Psi) % Pressure Drop
Table 4 – Percent pressure drop across 384x venture proved to be
insufficient.
Our sponsor provided us with another venturi and ozone generator
to experiment
with because we believed our generator and/or venturi was the
source of low ozone concentrations and thus our inability to
disinfect the water. Although unable to test positive for ozone
using our original components, we did test positive using the new
generator and the new venturi (see Table 5). The new ozone
generator used a UV light as well and was manufactured by
Sterilight.
Ozone Tests
4/5/2007
RepitionsDissolved O3 (ppm)
4 03 02 .3-.4
Purezone generator, 384x, 5u filter, check valvePurezone
generator, 384x, no filters, no check valveSterilight generator,
484, no filters, no check valve
Configuration
Table 5 - Dissolved ozone results proving that new components
yielded higher ozone concentrations
The new generator has a specification of producing 100mg O3/hr
at a 5 SCFH
suction rate. Our new venturi was manufactured by the same
company as our previous one, Mazzei, but was the 484 model. We
later found out through a Mazzei representative that the 484
venturi model operated better under lower input pressures than the
384x and could be the reason for increased dissolved ozone
levels.
Once we tested positive for dissolved ozone without the filters,
we wanted to test the system with all the components using the new
ozone generator and the new venturi. First, we first did pressure
testing to see how the pressure drops compared. The pressure drop
seemed very low with all three filters so we decided to take out
the carbon filter before testing for dissolved ozone. However, even
after removing the carbon filter, no ozone was dissolved in our
water. After removing all the filters we were able to produce .1-.2
ppm of ozone. Note that this result is slightly lower than the
above result which could be explained by the fact that these
results were taken after the water was recycled. We were also able
to generate .1-.2 ppm of ozone when we included all the filters,
but had the venturi last in the system in order to eliminate any
back pressure. According to the 484 pressure tables with air
15
-
suction, an inlet pressure of 4.3psi and an outlet pressure of
.05 psi should yield an approximate suction rate of about 5.5 SCFH.
See the appendices for more detail.
Initial Final Intitial Final8.20 n/a 6.20 n/a 24.39 n/a8.60 8.00
6.20 5.90 27.91 n/a8.30 7.50 2.20 2.20 73.49 0.008.50 n/a 2.35 n/a
72.35 n/a8.50 7.50 0.10 0.20 98.82 .1-.24.30 n/a 0.05 n/a 98.84
.1-.2
484 venturi, Sterilight ozone20u, 5u, carbon filter, 484
venturi, Sterilight ozone
% Pressure Drop
ORIENTATION
20u, 484 venturi, Sterilight ozone, 5u, carbon filter20u, 484
venturi, Sterilight ozone, 5u, carbon filter
20u, 484 venturi, Sterilight ozone, 5u20u, 484 venturi,
Sterilight ozone, 5u
HI Pressure (Psi) LOW Pressure (Psi) Dissolved Ozone
Table 6 - Optimal orientation comparison using dissolved ozone
and % pressure drop results
After verifying that ozone was dissolved into the water when the
venturi was at
the end of the system, we decided to do some fecal coliform
testing with different contact times. (See appendices for process
details). Because the highest amount of FC was eliminated at the
20min contact time, we concluded that the contact time for ozone
should be at least 20min. However, further testing should be done
because of the discrepancy within the results.
These results showed that our system was still not fully
eliminating the fecal coliform in the water. For this reason, we
decided to add the UV light into our system to ensure complete
disinfection. Note that this still does not take into account the
system orientation with regard to mass transfer.
Testing 4/11/2007 3:30pmResults 4/12/2007 3:45pmOrientation 20u,
5u, carbon, 484, Sterilight ozone generator
% sample Pre Post % Reduction Contact Time100 18100 7 61.11
15min (w/carbon)100 2 88.89 20min (w/carbon)100 5 72.22 60 min
(w/no carbon)
FC/mL
Table 7 - Fecal Coliform results comparing various contact
times
Several pressure tests and corresponding ozone concentration
tests were taken
to determine the optimal configuration. The pressure tests were
done using a computer automated connection and the ozone tests were
done with the colorimeter reagents. It was brought to our attention
that the process by which the ozone was dissolved into the water
could be improved. For further information on the theory behind
increasing the mass transfer see the “Dissolved Ozone” section
under Implementation Conclusions for further detail. Based on these
mass transfer theories, we tried two different orientations that we
thought would help maximize mass transfer. One was the
S-configuration (see appendices) and the other was the
U-configuration. Using tap water, we tested the dissolved ozone
with the Vacuvials with each configuration and found that the S
configuration yielded a higher amount
16
-
of ozone which confirmed previous results using the colorimeter
reagents. See results below.
4/23/2007Dissolved ozone (ppm)
U-configuration .01-.05S-configuration .08-.09
Table 8 - Dissolved ozone (ppm) results for "U" and "S"
configurations In our final design, we moved the venturi to the end
of the system to eliminate
back pressure thus maximizing our suction rate. We also added
the S configuration after the ozone injection to assist in the mass
transfer. These both proved very beneficial in reducing the
bacteria. See the final testing results below.
Testing 4/23/2007 1amResults 4/24/2007 12amOrientation:
% sample Pre Post % Reduction100 1640 15 99.09
FC/mL
20u, 5u, UV, carbon, 484, Sterilight ozone (including S
orientation)
Table 9 – First fecal coliform results using UV light
Testing 4/25/2007 2:30pmResults 4/26/2007 1:40pmOrientation:
% sample Pre Post % Reduction100 1430 6 99.58
FC/mL
20u, 5u, UV, carbon, 484, Sterilight ozone (including S
orientation)
Table 10 - Second fecal coliform results using UV
Along with the preceding tests, we also tested the turbidity
reduction and the flow
rate. To do turbidity testing, we borrowed a spectrophotometer
from our Biology Department. See results in the table below:
Turbidity Testing 3/26/2007
Turbitity (NTU)Pre Sample 40.3Post Sample 1.1
Table 11 - Turbidity results
Although, we were able to significantly reduce turbidity, we did
not meet our objective of turbidity being less than .5NTU. For this
reason, we decided to buy a finer particle filter (.5 micron) to
replace one of the old ones. The only problem was
17
-
that when we implemented this filter in the system, our pump was
not able to generate enough pressure to push the water through it
at a reasonable flow rate. Due to funding and time constraints we
decided to leave the system as it was reasoning that the turbidity
reduction was acceptable for our application, but should be reduced
in the future to meet EPA standards.
Flow rate was measured by two main methods. The first method
involved recording how much time was needed to fill a certain
container with water and then dividing by the amount of water in
the container. The second method involved weighing the final sample
and then using the specific gravity of water and the time to fill
the container to yield a flow rate. We used the second method for
our final results because it proved to be more accurate.
Flow Rate Testing4/23/2007
63.67 13.7 1.55
Flow Rate (gpm)
Orientation: 20/5/UV/carbon/Sterilight/484/S
Weight (lb)Time (s)
Table 12 - Flow rate results
Although this was slightly lower than our original objective of
2gpm, we believe
that this flow rate is sufficient for our application.
Implementation Conclusions
There are two main factors that affect the ability ozone has to
disinfect contaminated water sources; the amount of ozone generated
and the amount of ozone that gets dissolved into the water
stream.
Generating Ozone One factor with regard to the amount of ozone
generated is the amount of ozone
the generator is capable of producing. The other factor is the
suction rate that the venturi is producing to pull the air across
the generator and into the water stream. If the generator is not
being operated at a high enough suction rate, it may not be
producing the maximum of ozone possible. Other methods of producing
ozone, such as corona discharge, may be capable of producing higher
amounts of ozone under similar suction conditions. Our EDR explains
why this method of ozone generation was rejected. The two
generators that we used and tested were similar UV based ozone
generators. We chose to use the Sterilight generator because it had
specifications for both the Ozone generation rate as well as the
suction rate required to produce that generation rater. We do
believe that the Purezone generator is capable of working with a
water purification application such as this, but further testing
would need to be performed to make sure it was generating
sufficient amounts of ozone.
The amount of suction that the injector can produce is dependant
upon the geometry of the venturi and the pressures at its inlet and
outlet. The venturi manufacturer provided us with specification
tables which compare the inlet and
18
-
outlet pressures and the flow rates to estimate the amount of
suction the injector can produce. It is our assumption that these
tables were generated from experimental data collected by the
manufacturer. See the appendices for performance tables for the
384x and 484 Mazzei venturis. From our testing and discussions with
the venturi manufacturer, Mazzei, we came to some general
conclusions about the various venturis.
The 384x works better under high pressures and requires a large
percent pressure drop from inlet to outlet to create the most
suction. The 484 works better with low pressure differences and at
lower operating pressures. This information explains why the 484
worked well at the end of our system after the particle filtration.
According to this information a caution should be made that
removing the filters from the system, operating it only with the
pump, venturi and generator, may not be ideal conditions for ozone
injection and should not be used estimate the amount of ozone the
generator and injector are capable of producing. Furthermore, any
change in the pump or venturi location within the system will
change the pressure characteristics would require analysis to
determine if the venturi is providing the same suction rate, or if
a different model injector would be preferable.
Dissolving Ozone
In order for ozone to handle fecal coliform contamination, it
must be dissolved into the water stream so that the ozone molecules
come in direct contact with the bacteria. This happens through a
process known as mass transfer or diffusion. Mass transfer is
dependant directly upon the area of interaction between the ozone
molecules and the water molecules; smaller ozone bubbles means a
higher surface area to volume ratio and more interaction between
the ozone and water. Increasing the turbulence of the water stream
would also increase the amount of ozone that dissolves into the
water stream by providing more direct interaction between the water
and ozone molecules. From our experimentation adding the S
configuration on the end of our system helped improve the amount of
ozone that was dissolved. The S configuration consists of two L
joints, a screen, and 4 feet of tubing. The L joints increase the
turbulence of the water stream, while the screen helps break up the
ozone bubbles. Some type of mixing device could also be purchased
to help the ozone dissolve into the water better, such an idea was
rejected because of the high cost of these devices.
Our Results
According to the 5 psi pressure drop we measured across the
venturi, the tables show us that we should be producing a suction
rate of about 5.5 standard cubic feet per hour (SCFH). With this
suction rate our generator should be capable of its maximum ozone
production rate of 100mg Ozone/hour. At a flow rate of 1.55gpm, our
system would theoretically yield .284 ppm or mg/liter of ozone if
all of the ozone were to dissolve into the water stream. Because of
our system’s inability to provide 100% mass transfer of the ozone
into the water, we were only able to measure dissolved ozone
concentration levels of up to .09 ppm.
19
-
3.3 Operation The following table shows how bacteria
decontamination in our system depends
on the back pressure (relates to suction) and mass transfer. The
first test shows how the original configuration had too much back
pressure so not enough ozone was generated to purify the water. In
the second test the ozone was injected at the end, so there was low
back pressure but not enough mass transfer took place to purify the
water. The third test, with our final system design including the
S-configuration, had both low back pressure and high mass transfer
and was able to purify the water by 99.6%. The fourth test shows
the capability of ozone to purify the water by itself, without the
aid of the UV light. Note, in the third and fourth tests the water
had an extremely high initial FC count, approximately 10 times that
of the Honduran source. Therefore, we are confident that our system
will be able to completely reduce fecal coliform in their water
sources.
Pre Post
High High ozone, 20u, 5u, carbon 15 4 73.3%
Low Low 20u, 5u, carbon, ozone 20 5 75.0%
Low High 20u, 5u, UV, carbon, ozone 1430 6 99.6%
Low High 20u, 5u, carbon, ozone 1430 16 98.9%
ReductionFC CountBack PressureMass
Transfer Configuration
Table 13 - Fecal coliform reduction summary
4. Schedule
4.1 Gantt Chart See appendices
20
-
5. Budget
Project Expenditures
Components Budgeted
Cost
Actual Cost w/ Tax &
Shipping
Estimated Cost w/o
gifts Funding Source
Purezone UV 5x Ozone Generator $120.00 $129.97 $129.97 Eng.
Dept. Mazzei 384x Venturi $100.00 $45.05 $45.05 Eng. Dept.
Sterilight Generator & 484 Venturi - $0.00 $225.00 Ray Diener
Sterilight UV light - $0.00 $120.00 WFTW Zoeller 115V Mini Vac Pump
$75.00 $70.35 $70.35 Eng. Dept. Carbon Filter $20.00 $8.66 $8.66
Eng. Dept. Carbon Filter Housing $20.00 $0.00 $30.00 WFTW 20u
Particle Filter (2) - $4.54 $4.54 Eng. Dept. 20u Particle Filter
Housing - $32.08 $32.08 Eng. Dept. 5u Particle Filter $10.00 $0.00
$10.00 WFTW 5u Filter Housing - $32.08 $32.08 Eng. Dept. Screen
$10.00 $14.39 $14.39 Eng. Dept. Fittings, tubing, and Teflon tape
$5.00 $73.94 $73.94 Eng. Dept. Agar FC testing $57.00 $57.00 Eng.
Dept. Vacuvial Test kit $89.00 $89.00 Stephanie Colorimeter
Reagents
$100.00 $31.25 $31.25 Stephanie
Casing $60.00 - - - Contact Tank $40.00 - - - check valve -
$10.52 Eng. Dept. Total $560.00 $598.83 $973.31
Table 14 Project Expenditures
Final Design Estimated Costs
Components Estimated
Cost Sterilight Generator & 484 Venturi $225
Sterilight UV Light $120 Zoeller 115V Mini Vac Pump $70 Carbon
Filter $9 Carbon Filter Housing $22 20u Particle Filter (2) $5 20u
Particle Filter Housing $22 5u Particle Filter $5 5u Filter Housing
$22 Screen $14 Fittings, tubing, and Teflon tape $21 Total $535
Table 15 Estimated cost of final design
21
-
6. Conclusions
6.1 Objective Comparison The following table compares our
results to our objectives.
Result ObjectiveFlow Rate 1.5 gpm 2 gpm Bacteria 99.60% 100%
Turbidity 1.1
NTU .5 NTU Weight 28 lbs 50 lbs Cost $535 $300
Table 16 Comparison of results and objectives Flow Rate
We were not able to reach the original desired flow rate of 2
gallons per minute, but we were able to meet the specification of
1-4 gpm. We did meet the objective of being able to purify one
gallon of water in a half an hour period, which meets the need of
the purpose of the system allowing water to be purified for
demonstrations.
Bacteria
We were able to reduce the bacteria in the water by 99.8%. This
does not quit meet the goal of completely eliminating the fecal
coliform, however we are confident that it will adequately purify
the water under normal conditions, instead of the extremely high
levels of contamination that we put through the system to do this
testing.
Turbidity
We were able to reduce the turbidity from 40.3 NTU to 1.1 NTU.
This does not quite meet the .5 NTU objective. Because of problems
related to bacteria decontamination and the time we needed to focus
on them, we were not able to do extensive turbidity testing or
purchase a finer filter that would have reduced the turbidity
further.
Weight
We were able to meet the weight limit of 50 pounds. The combined
weight of the system’s components is 28 pounds; this does not
include the weight of the carrying case.
Cost
The cost of the system is significantly more than we had
anticipated and we did not reach our objective of creating a system
for under $300. Two things that led to the increased cost were the
higher cost of the ozone generator and venturi, and the added
expenditure of the UV light. Although the system is more expensive
than we had expected we still believe it is a viable option for the
people of Honduras. The benefits of clean water significantly out
weigh the capital cost of such a system.
22
-
Operation and Maintenance Manuals We were unable to produce the
operation and maintenance manuals that we
had intended. Because of problems with the amount of ozone that
was getting dissolved into the water stream and the ability of the
system to handle fecal coliform contamination we did not have
enough time to write the manuals.
6.2 General Comparison
Although we did not meet all of our objectives we believe that
our project was successful. We were able to gain a great deal
knowledge with regard to using ozone to purify water. We identified
the two major factors affecting the ozone concentration and
therefore the systems ability to purify water. These factors were
the pressure across the venturi (which affects suction rate) and
the mass transfer of the ozone dissolving into the water stream. We
were able to producing a working prototype that can be used in
Honduras to demonstrate this water purification method.
7. Future Work
7.1 General Advice • Don’t confuse smell of ozone with amount of
dissolved ozone, Ozone smell can
be misleading. Perform dissolved ozone tests frequently. •
Perform pressure testing to quantify the effect configuration
changes are having
ng. on the venturi. Intuition regarding pressure and flow can be
misleadi• Pay close attention to information gained regarding fluid
dynamics.
Make sure you have a sufficiently contaminated source to do
testing on. • ts because of an uncontaminated source wastes
time.
7.2 uInconclusive resul
F rther Research • Research affect pH levels have on using ozone
for water purification • Research temperature has on using ozone
for water purification
Investigate using both UV and ozone to purify the water. Will
the ozone attack bacteria that have already been dea
• ctivated by the UV light? How will this affect
its presence when
7.3
the ozone’s ability to offer residual disinfection (i.e. Will
the ozone be used up onthe already deactivated bacteria?)
• Gain further understanding of bromide and factors related to
using ozone for water purification
• Research amount of time needed for ozone to aid filtration.
Further Testing and Documentation • Test system with Purezone
generator to see the amount of ozone it is cap
producing at a given suction rate able of
m and make sure results are • Perform more accurate turbidity
tests
urther testing to characterize syste• Perform frepeatable
• Write operation and maintenance manuals
23
-
7.4 r T ip Tasks Determine if• bromide is present in the water
sources at potential implementation
ge their reaction to this type of
7.5 Future Design
sites Demonstrate ozone system to local people. Ga•
technology • Determine specifications a system would need to
meet
• ter with ozone alone raise dissolved ozone concentration
levels • Redesign to inject ozone before filtration, considering
pressure constraints of
venturi and mass transfer considerations • Design for permanent
installation
• Redesign to meet EPA standards for turbidity Redesign to
remove UV light and purify wa
Redesign to improve mass transfer and •
24
-
References
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/39
http://www.coolantconsultants.com/ozone_technologies.htm
Cruver, Dr. James E. Disinfection. Water Technology. P.32-38.
1989
Couch, Benjamin. Disinfection Byproducts. Pacific Ozone
Technology
Diener, Ray; water purification specialist. Elizabethtown
Crystal Pure Water
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html#mcls
Hach Company P.O. Box 389 Loveland, Colorado 80539-0389 Phone:
800-227-4224 Fax: 970-669-2932 http://www.hach.com/Company that
makes testing supplies including the colorimeter and reagents
http://www.lenntech.com/ozone/ozone-generation.htm
Mazzei Injector Corporation 500 Rooster Dr. Bakersfield, CA
93307 Phone (661) 363-6500 Fax (661) 363-7500
www.mazzei.net -venturi manufacturer and supplier (384x and 484)
-willing to help with other questions as well (ask for Justin or
Mike – they seem to be the most knowledgeable)
www.mcmaster.com
Melligan, Myrle. Triple O Systems; www.tripleo.com
Meyer, John. Messiah College Engineering Department Lab
Technician.
Microbac laboratory Camp Hill, PA
763-0582 Lab that does bromide testing on an iron chromatograph
(IC) for $30 per sample
http://www.northcoastmarines.com/ozone.htm
Ozone Solutions, Inc. 789 7th St NW Sioux Center, IA 51250 USA
Toll Free: (888) 892-0303
25
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/39http://www.coolantconsultants.com/ozone_technologies.htmhttp://www.hach.com/http://www.lenntech.com/ozone/ozone-generation.htmhttp://www.mazzei.net/http://www.mcmaster.com/http://www.tripleo.com/http://www.northcoastmarines.com/ozone.htm
-
26
Ph: (712) 722-0337 Fax: (712) 722-1787
http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/cd_vs_uv.htm
www.ozonesolutions.com
http://www.ozonemeters.com/K-7402_product.html for Vacuvials
-Vacuvial Supplier (ozone testing) -Great resource for ozone
information and materials -Willing to answer questions, very
helpful (ask for Scott)
Ozotech Inc.; www.ozotech.com Stephen Miller Ken Mow – vice
president, very knowledgeable 1-800-796-9671 Agua Next
http://www.o3ozone.com/ozone_generators_air_purifiers/ozone_generators_air_water_
purifiers/uv_ozone_generator/uv_pro_550_ozone_generator.htm
www.pacificozone.com
www.pacinst.org/reports/water_related_deaths/water_related_deaths_report.pdf#
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtm..., #
6,348,155
Stewart, Keith 931-243-6633 Small ozone water purification
systems for around the world Specially designs corona discharge
ozone generators and air dryers Sells portable system for medical
teams, www.integrityglobal.com
Upper Allen Sewage Treatment Plant 717-697-9548 Treatment plant
down by the yellow breaches Source of contaminated water
www.waterfiltersonline.com
www.watercenterfilters.com
www.wcponline.com
www.wqa.org
Water Quality Association Ozone Task Force. Ozone. United
States, 2004.
-
Appendices
-
Manual References 384x Product Manual:
http://www.mazzei.net/tables/384x.pdf 484 Product Manual:
http://www.mazzei.net/tables/484.pdf Sterilight UV:
http://www.r-can.com/product.php?cat=7&sub=4 Sterilight UV
Specificiations: http://www.r-can.com/product.php?cat=7&sub=4
Sterilight Ozone:
http://www.r-can.com/product.php?prod=255&sub=4 Vacuvial
Catalog Page: http://www.ozonesupplies.com/K-7402.html Vacuvial
Information: http://www.ozonesupplies.com/files/Vacuvials.pdf
Vacuvial MSDS:
http://www.ozonesupplies.com/files/K-7402MSDS.pdf
http://www.mazzei.net/tables/384x.pdfhttp://www.mazzei.net/tables/484.pdfhttp://www.r-can.com/product.php?cat=7&sub=4http://www.r-can.com/product.php?cat=7&sub=4http://www.r-can.com/product.php?prod=255&sub=4http://www.ozonesupplies.com/K-7402.htmlhttp://www.ozonesupplies.com/files/Vacuvials.pdfhttp://www.ozonesupplies.com/files/K-7402MSDS.pdf
-
State of the Art Comparison
Objective Our
System Ozone
Solutions VortexPlus WaterChef American Tank Co.
Flow Rate 2-5gpm 1.5 gpm 1-1.5gpm .5 gpm 10-20,000gpm n/a
Bacteria 100% 99.60% 99.9 n/a n/a n/a Turbidity .5 NTU 1.1 NTU n/a
n/a n/a n/a Weight 50 lbs 28 lbs 35-40 gpm 5.8 lbs. n/a n/a Cost
$300 $535 $2,525.00 n/a $49,900 n/a
Table 1 - State of the art comparison
-
Purchasing Equpment
Components Purchased From
Funding Source
Purezone UV 5x Ozone Generator North Coast Pets Eng. Dept.
Mazzei 384x Venturi Mazzei Eng. Dept. Sterilight Generator &
484 Venturi Donated by Ray Ray Diener Sterilight UV light Donated
by WFTW WFTW Zoeller 115V Mini Vac Pump R.F. Fager Eng. Dept.
Carbon Filter R.F. Fager Eng. Dept. Carbon Filter Housing WFTW WFTW
20u Particle Filter (2) R.F. Fager Eng. Dept. 20u Particle Filter
Housing Filtech Eng. Dept. 5u Particle Filter R.F. Fager WFTW 5u
Filter Housing Filtech WFTW Screen R.F. Fager Eng. Dept. Fittings,
tubing, and Teflon tape R.F. Fager Eng. Dept. Agar FC testing VWR
Eng. Dept. Vacuvial Test kit Ozone Solutions Stephanie Colorimeter
Reagents Hach Stephanie check valve R.F. Fager Eng. Dept.
Table 2 - Equpment suppliers Complete Costs
Components Budgeted Cost ($)
Actual Cost ($) Before
Tax Shipping Cost ($)
Actual Cost w/ Tax &
Shipping
Estimated Cost w/o
gifts Purezone UV 5x Ozone Generator $120.00 unknown $9.97
$129.97 $129.97 Mazzei 384x Venturi $100.00 unknown unknown $45.05
$45.05 Sterilight Generator and 484 Venturi - GIFT N/A $0.00
$225.00 Sterilight UV light - GIFT N/A $0.00 $120.00 Zoeller 115V
Mini Vac Pump $75.00 $66.37 N/A $70.35 $70.35 Carbon Filter $20.00
$6.38 $1.79 $8.66 $8.66 Carbon Filter Housing $20.00 GIFT N/A $0.00
$30.00 20u Particle Filter (2) - $4.29 N/A $4.54 $4.54 20u Particle
Filter Housing - $22.15 $7.83 $32.08 $32.08 5u Particle Filter
$10.00 GIFT N/A $0.00 $10.00 5u Filter Housing - $22.15 $7.83
$32.08 $32.08 Screen $10.00 $13.58 N/A $14.39 $14.39 Fittings,
tubing, and Teflon tape $5.00 $69.75 N/A $73.94 $73.94 check valve
N/A $9.92 N/A $10.52 $10.52 Agar for FC testing $57.00 unknown
$57.00 $57.00 Vacuvial Test kit $74.00 $15.00 $89.00 $89.00
Colorimeter Reagents
$100.00 $21.50 $9.75 $31.25 $31.25
Casing $60.00 - - - - Contact Tank $40.00 - - - - Total $560.00
$367.09 $52.17 $598.83 $983.83
Table 3 - Complete project expenditures
-
Dissolving Ozone and Ozone Testing
Different tests can be done for testing ozone in the air verses
dissolved ozone in the water. We utilized two different methods for
testing dissolved ozone. One was Vacuvials from a company called
Ozone Solutions. These were small ampoules filled with vacuum
pressure that filled with water when the tips were broken off.
There are chemicals in the vials that make them change color in the
presence of ozone. The color can then be visually compared to known
standards and the level of ozone in the water estimated in terms of
how many parts of ozone there are per million parts of water
(ppm).
Photo 1 Ozone testing equipment, Vacuvial system
Dissolved Ozone Reagent Kit 0.05-2.0 PPM K-7402 30 tests Color
comparator $74.00
To perform more accurate dissolved ozone tests we used the
Chemistry Department's portable colorimeter; it is a DR/850
Portable Colorimeter from Hach. We purchased the following reagents
from Hach to perform the dissolved ozone tests with this
colorimeter. High Range Ozone Reagents
• Product # 2518025 • Price $21.50 • Ozone Reagent, HR, AccuVac®
Ampoules • AccuVac® Ampoules contain the precise amount of
reagent for a single test and can be used as a measurement
curette
Photo 2 Colorimeter, used for ozone testing• Method: Indigo
• Range: up to 1.50 mg/L • Package contains 25 vials
-
Ozone Solutions, Inc. | 789 7th St. NW | Sioux Center, IA 51250
USA | Ph: (712) 722-0337 | Fax: (712) 722-1787
Dissolved Ozone VacuvialsOzone detection for less than $75
K-7402 Dissolved ozone vacuvials are the quickest & least
expensive way tomeasure your dissolved ozone levels. 30
colorimetric tubes for instant ozonedetection.
Featureslow cost (less than $75)simple useeasily distinguishable
colors30 tests in one kitaccuratekit includes 30 vacuvials, color
comparatorcharts, sample cup, indicator solutions &
plasticcarry
Product ID: K-7402In Stock: YesPrice: $74.00
SpecificationsRange (PPM): 0-0.6 & 0.6-2.0Minimum Detectible
Limit: 0.025 PPMMethod: DDPD METHOD (Proprietary chemistry)Test
Included with Kit: 30
Visual Detection Method
Easily determine the dissolved ozonelevel visually with color
comparatortubes. These tubes are included withevery kit!
Ozone Solutions, Inc. | www.OzoneSupplies.com |
[email protected]
-
Dissolved Ozone Vacu-vials Instantly and inexpensively determine
your dissolved ozone levels without spending thousands of dollars
on complex in line monitoring equipment. How to use Vacu-vials® for
fast, simple, photometric analysis.
Step 1. SNAP. Fill the snap cup with your water sample, then
snap the tip of a Vacu-vial ampoule as shown in the diagram above.
Vacuum will cause it to fill instantly with sample fluid and mix
with the pre-measured reagent inside.
Step 2. MIX. Mix the contents of the filled ampoule by tilting
it up and down several times, each time allowing the small bubble
inside to travel from end to end.
Step 3. READ. Compare the filled ampoule with the included color
comparators and read the result.
K-7402 is the dissolved ozone visual color comparator kit. It
includes everyting your need to test the dissolved ozone level.
Range PPM
MDL PPM Cat. No.
Kit * Price
Refill Cat.No. Refill Price
0-2.0 0.025 K-7402 $74.00 R-7402 $30.80 * K-7402 includes
solution, sample container, color comparator & 30 ampoules. –
Refill is 30 ampoules
Single Analyte Meters (SAMs) provide unprecedented economy,
simplicity, and accuracy in dedicated photometers. Light Source:
Light-emitting diode. Optical Path: 13 mm light path.
Photodetector: Silicon photodiode. Power Source: One 9-volt
alkaline battery (40 hours of use). Precision: 0.1 ppm
Signal Analyte Meter (SAM)
$615.00
…or you can use a SAM to read the ampoules.
-
CHEMetrics, Inc. 24 Hour Emergency Numbers: (703) 590-92044295
Catlett Rd., Calverton, VA 20138 (540) 439-3860(800) 356-3072 (540)
788-9026 Creation Date: 04/24/90 (2243-8)Fax (540) 788-4856 E-mail
[email protected] Revision Date: 08/06/04
Page 1 of 1
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
I. CHEMICAL IDENTIFICATION
TRADE NAMES: OZONE CHEMets® and Vacu-vials®
CATALOG NOS.: R-7402 and R-7403
DESCRIPTION: Reagent ampoules for the determination of ozone in
water.Each CHEMet™ ampoule contains approximately 0.50 mL of liquid
reagentsealed under vacuum. Each Vacu-vial™ ampoule contains
approximately2 mL of liquid reagent sealed under vacuum.
NFPA RATINGS: HEALTH: 1 FLAMMABILITY: 0 REACTIVITY: 0
II. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS
COMPONENT: Formaldehyde Solution, 37%CAS NO.: 50-00-0 PERCENT:
< 0.2
COMPONENT: Potassium Phosphate MonobasicCAS NO.: 7778-77-0
PERCENT: 2.0
COMPONENT: MethanolCAS NO.: 67-56-1 PERCENT: 4.0
COMPONENT: Deionized WaterCAS NO.: 7732-18-5 PERCENT:
>93.0
COMPONENT: Other componentsCAS NO.: N/A PERCENT: < 1.0
Any component of this mixture not specifically listed (e.g.
"other components")is not considered to present a carcinogen
hazard.
III. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
ACUTE TOXICITY: Irritation, cough, blindness, weakness, nausea,
vomiting,convulsions.CHRONIC TOXICITY: Irritation, dermatitis, CNS
effects causing headachesor impaired visionMEDICAL CONDITIONS
AGGRAVATED BY EXPOSURE: skin or respiratorydisorders
IV. FIRST AID MEASURES
EYE AND SKIN CONTACT: Immediately flush eyes and skin with water
for15 minutes.INGESTION: Do not induce vomiting. If victim is
conscious and alert, give 2-4 cupfuls of milk or water. Never give
anything by mouth to an unconsciousperson. Seek medical
attention.INHALATION: Remove individual to fresh air. If not
breathing give artificialrespiration (do not use mouth to mouth
resuscitation), if breathing is difficult,administer oxygen and
seek medical attention.
V. FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES
FLASH POINT: N/A AUTOIGNITION POINT: N/AFLAMMABILITY LIMITS:
UPPER: N/A LOWER: N/AEXTINGUISHING MEDIA: Dry chemical or carbon
dioxide
VI. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES
Take up with absorbent material. Place in small containers for
disposal.
VII. HANDLING AND STORAGE
Always wear eye protection when working with these
ampoules.WARNING: Do not break the tip of the ampoule unless it is
completelyimmersed in your sample. Breaking the tip in the air may
cause the glassampoule to shatter.If this product is used as
directed, the user will not come in contact with or beexposed to
any of its chemical components.Wash thoroughly after handling.
Avoid contact with eyes.Fragile. Liquid in glass. Handle with
care.Product should be stored in the dark and at room temperature;
however,temperatures up to 120°F or even below freezing will not
normally affectreagent performance.
VIII. EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION
OSHA PEL: 0.75ppm Formaldehyde TWA, 200ppm Methanol TWAACGIH
TLV: 0.3 ppm C Formaldehyde, 200ppm Methanol TWAPROTECTIVE
EQUIPMENT: Safety glasses.
IX. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
STATE: Liquid APPEARANCE: Colorless ODOR: NoneSOLUBILITY IN
WATER: Complete pH: 4BOILING POINT: 95°C MELTING POINT: 0°CVAPOR
PRESSURE: N/A SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 1VAPOR DENSITY: N/A
X. STABILITY AND REACTIVITY
HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: When heated to decomposi-tion,
formaldehyde fumes and oxides of carbon are emitted. Stable under
normal conditions.
XI. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION
CARCINOGENIC STATUS: Formaldehyde: ACGIH: A2 Suspected
carcino-gen, IARC: Group 2A carcinogen.No other data available at
this time.
XII. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Methanol, in high concentrations, is dangerous to aquatic life,
and is expectedto biodegrade rapidly.No other data available at
this time.
XIII. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS
Dispose of in a manner consistent with Federal, State, and Local
Regulations.
XIV. TRANSPORT INFORMATION
Not regulated.
XV. REGULATORY INFORMATION
EUROPEAN INFORMATION:EU Symbols: XN - HARMFULRisk Phrases:
Harmful by inhalation, in contact with skin and if
swallowed.Harmful: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged
exposure throughinhalation, in contact with skin and if
swallowed.Safety Phrases: In case of accident or if you feel
unwell, seek medical adviceimmediately (show the label where
possible). CANADA INFORMATION:WHMIS Classification: D2AAll chemical
components of this product are listed on Canada’s DSL list.U.S.
INFORMATION:This product contains methanol and formaldehyde which
are subject to SARASection 313 reporting requirements.All chemical
components of this product are listed on the TSCA Inventory.
XVI. OTHER INFORMATION
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE AND REPRESENTS
THE BESTINFORMATION CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO US. ALL PRODUCTS ARE
OFFERED INACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S CURRENT PRODUCTION
SPECIFICATIONSAND ARE INTENDED SOLELY FOR USE IN ANALYTICAL
TESTING. THE MANUFACTURERSHALL IN NO EVENT BE LIABLE FOR ANY
INJURY, LOSS OR DAMAGE RESULTING FROMTHE HANDLING, USE OR MISUSE OF
THESE PRODUCTS.
CHEMets® and Vacu-vials® are registered trademarks of
CHEMetrics, Inc.
-
Turbidity Testing Turbidity testing was done on a
spectrophotometer from the Biology Department. This measures the
amount of light that can pass through a water sample. The
instrument must first be calibrated using standard solutions of
known turbidity levels. The machine uses a linear curve to measure
the turbidity levels depending on the amount of light that passes
through the sample. After calibration the user must clean the
sample jar, place
and cover it in the device, press ‘READ’, and note the given
output of turbidity. The spectrophotometer gives readings in
nephelolometric turbidity units (NTU).
Photo 1 Turbidity testing equipment
Photo 2 Spectrophotometer
-
Pressure Testing
Procedure 1: Differential Pressure Gage We used an automated
gage to measure differential pressures of less than
10psi. This gage was connected to a computer and set up by John
Meyer. 1. Move the cart and computer a significant distance away
(about 8 ft.) from water
purification system to prevent any water from touching the
computer. 2. Using ¼ inch tubing, connect the high pressure end of
the gage (marked ‘HIGH’)
to the location which will experience the maximum pressure and
then connect the low pressure end of the gage to the location that
will experience the minimum amount of pressure.
3. When both ends are connected and stable, run the system.
Loosen the screw for the HIGH end of the gage to allow water to
drip out. Continue to let the water drip until the entire tube is
full of water from the measurement location to the gage. Once the
tube is full, tighten the screw. Do the same procedure for the LOW
end of the gage. For the low end of the gage, there are two smaller
diameter screws to loosen. Once both tubes are full of water and
the screws are tightened, data recording can begin.
4. To login, follow the instructions on the side of the computer
provided by John Meyer.
5. Once you are logged in, click on the “Virtual Logger” icon.
6. Then go to “Edit” and then “Settings.” Once in the Settings
window, set the
channel to 2. To correlate the voltage output of the transducer
to pressure set the minimum and maximum voltage to -1V and 5V to
5psi and 10psi, respectfully. These correlations can be derived
from the formula: y=2.5*x -2.5 where y is the pressure and x is the
voltage recognizing that the transduces has a 1-5 voltage range
output which corresponds to a 0-10 psi pressure difference. In
order to make sure that the data will be recorded in a new file,
you must click enable new logger.
7. Once all the settings are established, click ‘START’ to run
the test and ‘STOP’ to stop the test. Each time you do a new test,
make sure to rename the file, otherwise the new test will copy over
the old test.
Procedure 2: Atmospheric gage pressure
Originally we used large pressure gages to measure the gage
pressure at the inlet and outlet of the venturi. These gages were
not linked. There wass no automation, only a visual comparison.
These gages are extremely large and heavy and should be lifted with
care. These gages are for pressures less than 30psi. 1. Connect the
¼ inch tubing from the end of the gage (located in the back of
the
output dial) to whatever location in the water system you are
interested in. 2. Run the system. Wait until the system is fairly
study to record data. 3. When doing a differential type test, hook
up both meters, and record the results.
-
Photo 3 – Picture of larger pressure gages
-
Fecal Coliform Testing Materials needed:
-Bunsen burner -Autoclaved filter and clamp -Strike - Clean
plastic flask with an outlet to -Tweezers connect to vacuum -
Sealed filter paper - Sterilized graduated cylinder -Ethanol
-Distilled water -Labeled FC plates made with Agar
Procedure:
1. Connect the Bunsen burner to a gas outlet. 2. Connect the
plastic flask to the vacuum. 3. Set up the autoclaved filter on top
of the plastic flask. You do not need to clamp
it down, yet. 4. Turn on the gas and use the striker to start
the Bunsen burner. 5. Dip tweezers in ethanol and then place over
the flame. Remove from the flame
and let the flame die out. 6. Open a sealed filter paper being
very careful not to touch it with your hands. Use
the tweezers to separate the filter paper from the thin blue
attachment. 7. Place the filter paper inside the filter and clamp
shut. 8. Take the distilled water container and place the end over
the flames to ensure
decontamination. To moisten the filter paper, pour a small
amount of distilled water in the filter, turn on the vacuum, and
allow the water to run through the filter paper.
9. Typically, one would first take a control sample (distilled
water) first. Fill the graduated cylinder to the 100mL mark with
distilled water and pour into filter. Once all the water has gone
through, close the vacuum, and unclamp the filter.
10. Dip tweezers in ethanol and then place over flame. Remove
from the flame and let the flame die out.
11. Carefully use the tweezers to remove the filter paper from
the filter. You may want to break the seal, by pressing on the
rubber part that connects the filter to the plastic flask. Breaking
the seal allows an easier removal of the filter paper so tearing is
minimal.
12. Place the filter paper in the FC plate labeled for the
control sample. 13. Repeat steps 5-12 for the various samples in
your experiment except modify step
9 to fit your application based on the concentration of the
sample you want to run through the filter paper. After the sample
is completely poured into the filter, pour a very small amount of
distilled water into the filter after the sample to ensure that any
fecal coliform on the edges will go through the filter paper.
14. Insert the FC plates inverted (bottom up) into the 44.5
degree Celsius incubator for 24 hours.
15. After 24 hours examine the FC plates using a low power
(10-15x magnification) dissection microscope if needed. Count the
colonies and record the results (Fecal coliform colonies are blue,
regardless of shade)
*Note that the order one conducts their experiment is important.
To prevent washing the filter superfluously, conduct your
experiment so that samples are taken from cleanest to dirtiest so
that no unwanted bacteria would get into the water stream.
-
Contact Time Testing Procedure
1. Run the water through the system (20u, 5u, UV, carbon,
venturi) into a container. 2. Start timer when pump is turned off
and the full amount of water is in the
container, 3. Take sample for maximum contact time from the
container. Note that this sample
will never be run through the carbon filter, therefore the ozone
is allowed to decompose on its own.
4. Reorient system to run purified water through the pump and
carbon filter 5. At desired time increments run purified water
samples through carbon filter. 6. Collect at least 200 ml of water
sample in small container, seal and label with
time. 7. Perform FC plate tests on various samples to determine
the effect of time ozone
is in contact with the water sample.
Flow Rate Testing Procedure 1 (by weight)
1. Weigh the container that will hold the water. Record the
measurement, and zero out the scale.
2. After running the system at a steady flow rate, begin timing
how long it takes to fill up the bucket.
3. When time is up, measure and record the weight of the bucket.
4. Use the measured weight and time recorded in conjunction with
the specific
gravity of water and conversion factors to yield a flow rate
with common units. Procedure 2 (by volume)*
1. After system reaches steady state, start the timer as you
begin to fill up a labeled beaker with water.
2. Use the measured volume and the recorded time in conjunction
with conversion factors to yield a flow rate with common units.
*Note, this procedure may be less accurate that taking flow rate
measurements by weight due the uncertainty in the time and the
small quantity of water that is measured.
-
Schematics
Figure 1 - Schematic of original system design
Figure 2 - Schematic of final system design
-
System Photo
Photo 4 - Ozone water purification system
-
System Components
Photo 5 - Pump and screen
Photo 6 - 20 micron filter and filter housing
Photo 7 - 5 micron filter and filter housing
-
Photo 8 - Carbon filter and filter housing
Photo 9 - Sterilight UV light
Photo 10 - Sterilight ozone generator
-
Photo 11 - Mazzei Venturi
Figure 3 - Schematic of venturi
Photo 12 - Venturi and S configuration. Flow proceeds from right
to left. The components beginning at the right are the venturi, L,
male to male fitting (copper), L, screen, tubing
-
How to Read an Injector Chart Injector charts can be confusing
because of the multiple columns and unfamiliar terms. This is a
quick lesson on how to interpret injector charts to determine which
model will work for your ozone application.
Image of an injector: Water flows from left to right; ozone is
introduced into the middle
Below is a chart for a very popular ozone injector. The injector
is capable of injecting both liquids and gases. For ozone, we can
completely ignore the 3rd and 4th columns because they apply to
liquid suction only.
The first column is the injector inlet pressure, which is the
pressure provided from a pump. The 2nd column is the injector
outlet pressure, which is the pressure exerted on the injector
outlet from delivering the water where it needs to go. The next
column called MOTIVE FLOW states the flowrate of water going
through the injector. The last column called AIR SUCTION lists the
amount of air, or ozone, that can be sucked into the water stream.
As can be seen from the chart, as injector outlet pressure (2)
increases, injector suction decreases (6). This is true even though
the motive flow (5) stays relatively constant.
-
Example:
A pump delivering 18 GPM @ 15 PSI can inject a maximum of 20
SCFH (10 lpm) of air if 7 PSI of back pressure exists.
If more suction is needed, two options exist: Increase the size
of the pump, or decrease injector outlet pressure by increasing the
diameter of the pipe, reducing the number of elbows or lowering the
height the delivered water.
psig = pounds per square inch gauge gpm = gallons per minute
scfh = standard cubic feet per hour
Fact: The terms “venturi” and “injector” are used synonymously
in the ozone industry”
http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/reading_injector_charts.htm
accessed Mar 21st 2007
http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/reading_injector_charts.htm
-
Material Compatibility with Ozone Ozone Compatible Materials
Chart *
Material Rating (Source: Cole Parmer) [Ozone Concentrations not
specified] ABS plastic B - Good Acetal (Delrin®) C - Fair Aluminum
B - Good Brass B - Good Bronze B - Good Buna-N (Nitrile) D - Severe
Effect Butyl A - Excellent Cast iron C - Fair Chemraz A - Excellent
Copper B - Good CPVC A - Excellent Durachlor-51 A - Excellent
Durlon 9000 A - Excellent EPDM A - Excellent up to 100-deg F EPR A
- Excellent Epoxy N/A Ethylene-Propylene A - Excellent Flexelene
A-Excellent Fluorosilicone A - Excellent Galvanized Steel In Water
(C - Fair), In Air (A - Excellent)Glass A - Excellent Hastelloy-C®
A - Excellent HDPE A- Excellent Hypalon® A - Excellent Hytrel® C -
Fair Inconel A - Excellent Kalrez A - Excellent up to 100-deg F
Kel-F® (PCTFE) A - Excellent LDPE B - Good Magnesium D - Poor Monel
C - Fair
http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_compatible_materials.htm#Note#Notehttp://www.ozoneapplications.com/products/flexelene.htm
-
Natural rubber D - Severe Effect Neoprene C - Fair NORYL® N/A
Nylon D - Severe Effect PEEK A - Excellent Polyacrylate B - Good
Polyamide (PA) C-D (Not recommended) Polycarbonate A - Excellent
Polypropylene C - Fair Polysulfide B - Good Polyurethane, Millable
A - Excellent PPS (Ryton®) N/A PTFE (Teflon®) A - Excellent PVC -
Water A - Excellent PVC - Air B - Good PVDF (Kynar®) A - Excellent
Santoprene A - Excellent Silicone A - Excellent Stainless steel -
304 B - Good/Excellent Stainless steel - 316 A - Excellent Steel
(Mild, HSLA) D - Poor Teflon A - Excellent Titanium A - Excellent
Tygon® B - Good Vamac A - Excellent Viton® A - Excellent Zinc D -
Poor
Note: These materials were tested at ozone levels exceeding
1,000 PPM.
Ratings -- Chemical Effect
A. Excellent. -- No effect B. Good -- Minor Effect, slight
corrosion or discoloration. C. Fair -- Moderate Effect, not
recommended for continuous use. Softening, loss of strength,
swelling may occur. D. Sever Effect -- Not recommended for ANY
use.
http://www.ozoneapplications.com/products/kynar_fittings.htmhttp://www.ozoneapplications.com/products/teflon_tubing.htm
-
N /A = Information Not Available.
* Remember that different materials react differently to wet or
dry ozone. DRY ozone has been dried to a -60 deg F or lower, WET
ozone contains small amounts of moisture. Contact Ozone Solutions
to determine if your material is compatible.
http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_compatible_materials.htm
Accessed Mar. 21st 2007
http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_compatible_materials.htm
-
Ozone Conversions: Physical Properties, Standard conditions P =
1013.25 MB, T = 273.3 K
Density of ozone , 2.14 kg/m3
Density of oxygen, 1.43 kg/m3
Density of air, 1.29 kg/m3
Density of water, 1000 kg/m3
USEFUL CONVERSION FACTORS (for water) 1000 liters = 1 m
3 = 264 US gallons 1 gal = 3.785 liters = 3785 ml
OZONE CONCENTRATION IN WATER 1 mg/l = 1 PPM O3 = 1 g O3/m
3 water {By weight} OZONE CONCENTRATION IN AIR BY VOLUME
1 g O3 / m3 = 467 PPM O3
1 PPM O3 = 2.14 mg O3/m3
OZONE CONCENTRATION IN AIR BY WEIGHT 100 g O3 / m
3 = 7.8% O3
1% O3 = 12.8 g O3/m3
OZONE CONCENTRATION IN OXYGEN BY WEIGHT 100 g O3/m
3 = 6.99% O3
1% O3 = 14.3 g O3/m3
Convert gaseous O3 concentration from g/m3 to ppm by volume ---
[PPM O3 = C · 467] (Example: 2.14 g/m3 at standard conditions =
1,000 ppm)
Also: If we know concentration in g/m3 and flowrate in LPM, we
can calculate output in g/hr
Concentration(g/m3) X Flowrate(lpm) X 0.001(m3/liter) = O3
output (g/minute)
(Example: 28.7 g/m3 at 2.9 lpm flowrate)
28.7 g/m3 X 2.9 lpm X (1 m3/1,000 liters) = 0.083 g/minute
0.083 g/minute x 60 minutes = 4.9 g/hr
http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_conversions.htm
Accessed Mar 21st 2007
http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_conversions.htm
-
Effect of Ozone on Bacteria
1 - Computer generated image of a bacteria cell
2 - Close-up of ozone molecule coming into contact with
bacterial wall
3 - Ozone penetrating and creating hole in bacterial wall
4 - Close-up effect of ozone on cell wall
5 - Bacterial cell after a few ozone molecules come into
contact
6 - Destruction of cell after ozone (cell lysing)
As a comparison based on 99.99% of bacterial concentration being
killed and time taken: Ozone is
25 times of that of HOCl (Hypochlorous Acid) 2,500 times of that
of OCl (Hypochlorite) 5,000 times of that of NH2Cl
(Chloramine).
Further more, ozone is at least 10 times stronger than chlorine
as a disinfectant. Chlorine reacts with meat forming highly toxic
and carcinogen compounds called THMs or tri-halomethanes -
rendering meats lesser quality products. THMs was also implicated
as carcinogens in developing kidney, bladder, and colon cancers.
Chlorine also results in the production of chloroform, carbon
tetrachloride, chloromethane besides THMs. On the other hand, ozone
does not even leave any trace of residual product upon its
oxidative reaction.
http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/bacteria_destruction.htm
accessed Mar 21, 2007
http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/bacteria_destruction.htm
-
Ozone Properties:
Property Ozone vs. Oxygen
Molecular Formula: O3 O2Molecular Weight: 48 32 Color: light
blue colorless
Smell: - clothes after being outside on clothesline - photocopy
machines - smell after lightning storms
- odorless
Solubility in Water (@ O-deg C): 0.64 0.049
Density (g/l): 2.144 1.429 Electrochemical Potential, V: 2.07
1.23
Typical O3 half-life vs. Temperature Gaseous
Temp (C) half-life * -50 3-months -35 18-days -25 8-days 20
3-days 120 1.5-hours 250 1.5- seconds
Dissolved in Water (pH 7) Temp (C) half-life
15 30-minutes20 20-minutes25 15-minutes30 12-minutes35
8-minutes
* These values are based on thermal decomposition only. No wall
effects, humidity, organic loading or other catalytic effects are
considered.
-
Ozone Solubility
The solubility of ozone depends on the water temperature and the
ozone concentration in the gas phase: Units in mg/l or ppm.
O3 GAS 5 Co 10 Co 15 Co 20 Co
1.5% 11.09 9.75 8.40 6.43
2% 14.79 13.00 11.19 8.57
3% 22.18 19.50 16.79 12.86
http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_properties.htm
http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_properties.htm
-
Ozone vs. Chlorine: ACTION IN WATER CHLORINE OZONE
Oxidation Potential (Volts)- 1.36 2.07 Disinfection: Bacteria
Viruses
Moderate Moderate
Excellent Excellent
Environmentally Friendly No Yes Color Removal Good Excellent
Carcinogen Formation Likely Unlikely Organics Oxidation Moderate
High Micro flocculation None Moderate pH Effect Variable Lowers
Water Half-Life 2-3 hours 20 min. Operation Hazards: Skin Toxicity
Inhalation Toxicity
High High
Moderate
High Complexity Low High Capital Cost Low High Monthly Use Cost
Moderate-High Low Air Pre-treatment None Filer and dehumidify
air
http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_vs_chlorine.htm
Accessed Mar 21st 2007
http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/oxidizing_potential_of_ozone.htmhttp://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_bacteria_mold_viruses.htmhttp://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_bacteria_mold_viruses.htmhttp://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_bacteria_mold_viruses.htmhttp://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_bacteria_mold_viruses.htmhttp://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_properties.htmhttp://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/air_drier_ozone.htmhttp://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_vs_chlorine.htm
-
ID Task Name Start Finish
1 Research/scheduling about spectrometer Mon 12/11/06 Fri
2/16/07
2 Investigate Pressure measurement opportunities Mon 12/11/06
Fri 3/9/07
3
4 Write up Testing Procedures Mon 12/11/06 Fri 5/4/07
5 Fecal Coliform Mon 12/11/06 Fri 2/2/07
6 Contact Time Mon 12/11/06 Fri 2/2/07
7 Turbitity Mon 12/11/06 Fri 2/16/07
8 Screen Mon 12/11/06 Fri 2/16/07
9 Bromide/Bromate Mon 12/11/06 Fri 2/23/07
10 Flow Rates/Pressure Mon 12/11/06 Wed 2/28/07
11
12 Pre-Carbon Outlet Mon 2/12/07 Fri 3/16/07
13 Order Contact-Tank Mon 2/12/07 Fri 3/16/07
14
15 Actual Testing Mon 2/12/07 Fri 5/4/07
16 Fecal Coliform Mon 2/12/07 Fri 3/2/07
17 Contact Time Mon 2/12/07 Fri 3/2/07
18 Turbitity Mon 2/26/07 Fri 3/16/07
19 Screen Mon 2/26/07 Fri 3/16/07
20 Bromide/Bromate Mon 3/12/07 Fri 3/30/07
21 Flow Rates/Pressure Mon 3/26/07 Fri 4/13/07
22
23 Write Operational Manual Mon 2/12/07 Fri 3/30/07
24 Write Maintance Manual Mon 2/12/07 Fri 3/30/07
25 Final Presentation Mon 4/16/07 Fri 4/27/07
26 Final Design Report Fri 3/30/07 Fri 5/4/07
S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T
W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M
T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
SSep 3, '06 Sep 10, '06 Sep 17, '06 Sep 24, '06 Oct 1, '06 Oct 8,
'06 Oct 15, '06 Oct 22, '06 Oct 29, '06 Nov 5, '06 Nov 12, '06 Nov
19, '06 Nov 26, '06 Dec 3, '06 D
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Page 1
Project: Spring Gannt ChartDate: Fri 5/11/07
-
M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T
F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W
T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T
W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M
T W T F S S M T W T Fc 10, '06 Dec 17, '06 Dec 24, '06 Dec 31, '06
Jan 7, '07 Jan 14, '07 Jan 21, '07 Jan 28, '07 Feb 4, '07 Feb 11,
'07 Feb 18, '07 Feb 25, '07 Mar 4, '07 Mar 11, '07 Mar 18, '07 Mar
25, '07 Apr 1, '07 Apr 8, '07 Apr 15, '07 Apr 22, '07 Apr 29,
'07
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Page 2
Project: Spring Gannt ChartDate: Fri 5/11/07
FWR final.docAppendices.docreading injector chart.docPDF Manual
References.docstate of art app.docVacuvial Catelog page.pdfVacuvial
info sheet.pdfVacuvial MSDS.pdfTurbidity Testing
appendix.docMaterial Compatibility with Ozone.docOzone
Conversions.docozone killing bacteria.docOzone Properties and
solubiilty temps.docTypical O3 half-life vs. Temperature Ozone
Solubility
Ozone vs Chlorine.docSolubility Chart.jpgSpring Gannt
Chart.mpp