Dezentrale Wasseraufbereitung mit Membranen in d D db i K t t h

Transcription

Martin Membrane Brüsewitz, 11. Juni 2015
Dezentrale Wasseraufbereitung mit Membranen in d D
der Dauerversorgung
und bei
d b i Katastrophen
K t t h
Der Ultra Low Pressure Ultra‐Filtration (ULPUF) process
– Der Waserrucksack PAUL –
Univ.‐Prof. Dr.‐Ing. Franz‐Bernd Frechen
g
Universität Kassel
Slide 1
Chair, IWA Specialist Group
“Membrane Technology”
gy
Prodekann des Fachbereichs Bauingenieur‐
und Umweltingenieurwesen
Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering (DESEE)
Head: Prof. Dr.‐Ing. F.‐B. Frechen
www.uni‐kassel.de/fb14/siwawi
Winner 2011 in the
category „society“
Was ist das Besondere am ULPUF‐Prozess?
Slide 2
Was ist das Besondere am ULPUF‐Prozess?
operation principles PAUL
 dead end filtration
d d d filt ti
 ultra low pressure: 0.00 to 0.08 bar (0.04 typical)
 9.5 m² membrane surface area
 nominal flux 5 LMH, nominal yield 1,200 L/d
nominal flux 5 LMH nominal yield 1 200 L/d
Slide 3
 flat sheet vertically mounted
operation principles
d d d filt ti
 according to literature, the permeate flow will come to zero (with TMP between 0.3 and 10 bar)
feed = raw water
decay of filtrate flow rate
membrane
filtrate = permeate
Slide 4
Melin/Rautenbach: Membranverfahren. 3rd edition 2007. ISBN 978‐3‐540‐34327‐1 Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York
1. Bacterial activity keeps up cake layer permeability
100.00
Chriesbach River water:
DOC 3.1 - 4.6 mgC/l
T bidit 1
Turbidity:
1.5
5 - 24 NTU
With and without 5M NaN3
Chriesbach, renewed, 24h
Chriesbach, NaN3, 5mmol/l
90.00
80.00
70.00
J, l/h/m2
J
2
60 00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
Daily fluctuation but on
average stable flux
20.00
10.00
0.00
0
5
10
day
15
20
25
Slow but steady flux
reduction
Slide 5
From Presentation Peter/Pronk (EAWAG) 2005, Techneau workshop, Berlin
2. dead end filtration – no sizing effect
 acc. to Ripperger, high velocities (= forces) along the membrane t Ri
hi h l iti ( f
) l
th
b
percen
ntage of p
particle size
surface have a sizing effect, leaving higher percentages of small particles on the membrane: increased likeliness of pore clogging
ti l
th
b
i
d lik li
f
l i
 in the ULPUF, vertical force is much lower than with cross flow
filtration !
1 no crossflow (original particle
distribution)
2 … 5 increasing crossflow velocity
from 0.3 m/s to 1.5 m/s
Slide 6
particle size
particle size
Rippberger ,S.(1993): Berechnungsansätze zur Crossflow‐Filtration. Ch
Chem‐Ing‐Tech. 65, Nr
I T h 65 N 5, 533‐540
5 533 540
3. Low TMP
 The higher the TMP as the driving force for small particles to be Th hi h th TMP th d i i f
f
ll
ti l t b
Slide 7
dragged into the pores, the lower the occurrence of pore bl ki
blocking
 With ultra low TMP, the small particles presumably cannot even pass the cake layer
operation principles
d d d filt ti
 dead end filtration is only recommended with very low Slide 8
suspended solids content – as can be found in surface waters
(in general and during emergencies)  cake layer has to be removed somehow – but if simple operation is essential, this cannot be done by backflush
,
y
Slide 9
models of cake layer with cross flow …
 flat sheet vertically mounted
fl t h t
ti ll
t d
 forces at a cake layer particle during filtration
Fg force of gravity
feed
permeate
FN filtration force
FF friction force
Slide 10
membrane
 forces at a cake layer particle during filtration and filling
f
t
k l
ti l d i filt ti
d filli
F? force due to tur‐
bulence when filling
Fg force of gravity
feed
permeate
FN filtration force
FF friction force
Slide 11
membrane
 forces at a cake layer particle during filtration pause
f
t
k l
ti l d i filt ti
Fg force of gravity
FS sticky force
Slide 12
membrane
 forces at a cake layer particle during filtration pause and filling
f
t
k l
ti l d i filt ti
d filli
F? force due to tur‐
bulence when filling
Fg force of gravity
FS sticky force
Slide 13
membrane
 forces at a cake layer particle during tap closing
f
t
k l
ti l d i t
l i
Fg force of gravity pl s short term s rge hen closing tap
plus short term surge when closing tap
FS sticky force
Slide 14
membrane
how much water is filtered per day?
Slide 15
water for 400 affected people: 1,200 L/d (800 bottles
people: 1 200 L/d (800 bottles 1.5 Liter each) 1 5 Liter each)
– see picture: 1 day production (1.2 tons of water)
capacity of PAUL
 According to our tests at University of Kassel, we found a A
di t
t t tU i
it f K
l
f
d
Liter filtere
ed per dayy
capacity to be 1,200 Liter per day (minimum)
 All measurements of PAULs onsite (Columbia, Benin, Myanmar 6000
etc.) indicate
5400 5400
5000
4800 4800 4824
5000
higher
4320
amounts:
4000
3323
2880 2880
3000
2400
1920
2000
1200
1000
Slide 16
0
capacity of PAUL: influence of EPS & temperature
 in cases of emergency and in rural areas (well water or surface i
f
di
l
( ll t
f
water), usually low EPS concentrations are observed
 also, temperatures are higher
permeability development PES membrane with 150 kDalton
700
dw+solids
C_EPSdissolved = 2.06 mg/L
DOC = ? mg/L
SS = 700 mg/L
perm
meability in
n L/(m²*h*b
bar)
600
rainwater storage pond, rainwater
storage pond,
Myanmar
500
river
C_EPSdissolved = 2.60mg/L
DOC = 3.53 mg/L
SS 4 20 /L
SS ca.4 ‐20 mg/L
400
eff final sedimentation
C_EPSdissolved = 9.32mg/L
DOC = 8.79 mg/L
TS ca. 4 mg/l
300
200
100
0
0
12
24
36
48
dw+eff. primary sedimentation (1:1)
C_EPSdissolved = 15.4 mg/L
g/
DOC = 29.5 mg/L
SS ca. 26‐41 mg/l
time in h
Slide 17
Exler, H.; Telgmann, U.; Frechen, F.‐B (2013): Einfluss gelöster organischer Verbindungen (EPS) auf die hydraulische Leistungsfähigkeit von Membranen
g
(
)
g
g
g ( )
y
g
g
gwf ‐ Wasser|Abwasser, June 2013
filtration is mostly done by the cake layer
raw
water
cake layer
(filtration active)
filtrate
Solids (organic, anorganic, (organic anorganic
bacteria, pathogens, …)
Slide 18
membrane
typical pore width 20 to
20 to 100 nm
100 nm (0.020 to
(0 020 to 0.100 µm)
0 100 µm)
Log‐R
Reductio
on‐Value
e LRV
bacteria removal
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Fresenius
Fresenius
Fresenius
Fresenius
Fresenius
Fresenius
e.coli
coliforme
I.E.
e.coli
coliforme
I.E.
ISO 9308‐1
ISO 9308‐1
ISO 7899‐2
ISO 9308‐1
ISO 9308‐1
ISO 7899‐2
PAUL A
PAUL A
PAUL A
PAUL B
PAUL B
PAUL B
min
Min
5,301
5,368
4,444
5,672
5,929
5,041
avg
g
Mittel
5,689
,
5,704
,
5,092
,
6,013
,
6,144
,
5,245
,
max
Max
6,362
6,415
5,568
6,380
6,431
5,544
Slide 19
analyzed by Institut Fresenius,
Fresenius Göttingen
virus removal (Federal Environment Agency UBA)
added virusses
human adenovirusses
Slide 20
analyzed by Federal Environment Agency
Agency, Dessau/Roßlau
virus removal (Federal Environment Agency UBA)
total amount filtered in m³
feed: drinking water
Slide 21
analyzed by Federal Environment Agency
Agency, Dessau/Roßlau
conclusions
Slide 22
conclusions
conclusions
 advantages of the ULPUF in this application
d t
f th ULPUF i thi
li ti
1. the ULPUF process achieves LRV from 3 up to more than 6 for bacteria as 2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
well as for viruses
ll f
i
the membrane more or less only serves as a support for the filtrating cake layer → this is also exemplified by the high LRV for viruses
this is also exemplified by the high LRV for viruses
no cross flow, thus no sizing effect of the cake layer → low risk of pore blocking
TMP is ultra low, this means driving force of small particles through the cake layer into the pores is very low → low risk of pore blocking
cake layer into the pores is very low →
low risk of pore blocking
if EPS occur, they will be transported down to the bottom volume and not be recycled to the membrane surface
y
structure of the cake layer and bacterial activity keep up the cake layer’s p
permeability
y
Slide 23
Low invest, small area: high maintenance & replacement costs
maintenance & replacement costs
high invest, large area: low main‐
tenance & no replacement costs
& no replacement costs
cosst of waterr in € per p
person and
d month
… and about cost
10
8
Basis for PAUL calculation:
Water produced :
1,200 Liter/day
Unit price (excl. VAT):
995 €
add. cost (transport, tax etc)
300 €
cost per maintenance:
30 €
maint. interval: 200 m³ filtered (at least once per year) ‐ May 2015
20 Liter/P per day
dates as stated 9,13
5,79
,
6
6,08
4
2,70
2
0,27
0 45
0,45
0,89
1,08
1,35
2,71
2,71
1,52
0
Slide 24
Note: for Tulip and Lifesaver (red cols), prices are calculated ONLY on the basis of necessary replacement cartridges . They do NOT
include price of the base unit, NO spare parts, NO maintenance ‐ really NOTHING is included (not even shipping)
,
p
g
included (this would triple the price per m³)
(
p
p
p
)
Lifesaver: In addition, the price of activated carbon cartridges is NOT
cosst of waterr in € per p
person and
d month
… and about cost
10
8
Basis for PAUL calculation:
Water produced :
1,200 Liter/day
Unit price (excl. VAT):
995 €
add. cost (transport, tax etc)
300 €
cost per maintenance:
30 €
maint. interval: 200 m³ filtered (at least once per year) ‐ May 2015
20 Liter/P per day
dates as stated 9,13
5,79
,
6
6,08
4
2,70
2
0,27
0 45
0,45
0,89
1,08
1,35
2,71
2,71
1,52
0
Slide 25
Note: for Tulip and Lifesaver (red cols), prices are calculated ONLY on the basis of necessary replacement cartridges . They do NOT
include price of the base unit, NO spare parts, NO maintenance ‐ really NOTHING is included (not even shipping)
,
p
g
included (this would triple the price per m³)
(
p
p
p
)
Lifesaver: In addition, the price of activated carbon cartridges is NOT
latest development stage and accessories
t view
top
i
side view
front
valve closed
valve open
Slide 26
tile with valve incl.
float, replaces
sieve
raw water tank
optional:
pre-sieve
optional:
valve
detail
tile
valve
valve closed
t view
top
i
float
side view
front
valve open
valve closed
valve open
tile with valve to be
mounted in the
filtered water tank at
proper height
Slide 27
filtered
filt
d
water
tank
float, replaces
sieve
raw water tank
optional:
pre-sieve
optional:
valve
detail
tile
valve
valve closed
t view
top
i
float
side view
front
valve open
valve closed
valve open
tile with valve to be
mounted in the
filtered water tank at
proper height
Slide 28
filtered
filt
d
water
tank
float, replaces
sieve
distribution of PAUL
Malaysia: 4
Madagascar: 10
Colombia: 8
Comoros: 13
Kenya/Somalia: 31
Congo: 17
Malawi: 21
Cuba: 12
Kenya: 8
Mexico: 2
Mongolia: 3
N ibi 1
Namibia:
(as of 08.06.2015)
Niger: 1
Nigeria: 4
Mozambique: 3
Cameroon: 9
Cambodia: 6
Indonesia: 12
India: 13
1,571 PAUL
Nepal: 140
Pakistan: 255
Pakistan: 257
Peru: 10
H iti 167
Haiti:
Philippines: 164
Serbia: 55
United
Kingdom: 2
Ghana: 10
Vietnam: 94
R i 1
Russia:
Gambia: 26
Slide 29
Eritrea: 2
Ecuador: 5
Dom. Rep.: 1
Chile: 2
Bulgaria: 1
Bolivia: 1
Bénin: 10
Egypt: 5
Afghanistan: 14
Tanzania: 10
Venezuela: 10
Taiwan: 2
Uganda: 20
Turkey/Syria: 3
Sambia: 1
Switzerland: 1
Senegal: 1
Zimbabwe: 1
Somalia: 11
St. Lucia: 2
South Sudan: 1
Swaziland: 1
some parties who brought PAUL into service are
Slide 30
Stiftunglife
g
Slide 31
Nepal
Slide 32
Ghana
Slide 33
Uganda
thank you very much for your attention !
www.uni-kassel.de\fb14\siwawi
www
uni-kassel de\fb14\siwawi
www.waterbackpack.org
Winner 2011 in
the category
„society“
Slide 34
© Humanity Care Foundation

Dezentrale Wasseraufbereitung mit Membranen in d D db i K t t h

Transcription

Similar documents

Paul Intro Description Feedback EN/DE

lions clubs international distrikt 111 niedersachsen

Schutzbeschichtungen für elektronische Baugruppen