Greywater Reuse on Duke’s        Campus      Natalya Polishchuk         Liwei Zhang      Changheng Yang              1    ...
OutlineIntroductionSourcesTreatmentUse PlanConclusion                 1       1
IntroductionWhat is greywater? Urban wastewater that  includes     Baths, showers,     Hand basins, washing      machin...
IntroductionUN: Good grade water should not be used for     purposes that can be served with a lower     grade unless ther...
Introduction    Duke used 566.4 million gallons in 2007      Residential housing (11%)      Reused water (estimate: 40 %...
SourcesResidential Housing at Duke: Sinks Showers (hair collectors added) Washing machines (lint filters installed)    ...
Sources   Characteristics of the grey water                                                               Particle        ...
North Carolina Regulations5 mg/L TSS                      Storage: 5 daymonthly, 10 mg/L                detention pond plu...
TreatmentRaw grey waterBar screen                 Equalization tank Physical TreatmentDisinfection  Reuse    1            ...
TreatmentPhysical treatment methods and performances                                        TSS        Turbidity    COD   ...
TreatmentMembrane filtration advantages: Easy to operate Moderate cost Removal rate meets regulationsNo biological trea...
TreatmentBar screen Coarse particles, Body hairs and Large-size items    Vegetable leaves    Eggshell pieces, etc)   ...
TreatmentTypical design parameters:               (Tchobanoglous et al, 2002)                              1              1
TreatmentMicrofiltration membrane Stainless   metal membrane is used.Basic characteristics are in the following table:   ...
TreatmentImpact of fouling on the permeate fluxFollowing expression is applied to calculate the permeateflux when fouling ...
TreatmentAssume δc(t) = J × C × t/ρ, J is the permeate flux (m3/(m2.s)) C is the mass concentration of particles (29×10-...
TreatmentThe curve of permeate flux vs. time:      Critical Point:(1688 hours , 4.81×10-3 m3/m2s)                        1...
TreatmentParticle removal efficiency of the membraneRemoval Efficiency, %       100        90        80        70        6...
Treatment Characteristics of the grey water: D mean=286μm, D 10=13μm Removal amount of particles (C be the concentration o...
TreatmentComparison: Microfiltration membrane            vs. Traditional sand filterKey Design Parameters:           Param...
TreatmentThe particle removal rate of the filter be calculated as(Wiesner M. 2009): Final result:                         ...
TreatmentCollector efficiency (ηT) can beevaluated with the use of theexpression developedby Rajagopalan and Tien (1976): ...
TreatmentParticle removal efficiency of the membrane andthe sand filter:               removal       Removal rate     Remo...
Treatment      Microfiltration cost      Estimated between $400-800 (Keystone Filter Division)      Sand filtration cost  ...
TreatmentHowever, compared with the membrane, a sand filterrequires a higher frequency of backflushing.Typical backflushin...
DisinfectionThe advantage of UV Cheaper than chlorine according to the EPA. Does not create harmful chlorinated hydrocar...
Disinfection           1                    1Lu, G., C. Li, et al. (2008).
Option: ROThe membrane has good total ion removal rate(>80%) (Yoon and Lueptow. 2005)However, the cost will be definitely ...
Use PlanNorth Carolina grey water reuse regulation:  Allowed                                              Not Allowed:  ...
Use Plan    Duke uses reclaimed water from North Durham    Water Reclamation Facility to water select plants      Advanta...
ConclusionsSource: on-campus residencesTreatment: Bar screen microfiltration membrane UV disinfectionUses: golf course...
Thank YouQuestions?                1        1
ReferencesLi F., Wichmann K., Otterpohl R., 2009. Review of the technological  approaches for grey water treatment and reu...
ReferencesDuke University, (April 25, 2008). Sustainability: What isDuke doing to conserve water?. Retrieved April 12,2009...
ReferencesKim R., Lee S., Jeong J., et al, 2007. Reuse of greywater and  rainwater using fiber filter media and metal memb...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Greywater reuse proposal for duke university campus

1,264 views

Published on

A team proposal (with Liwei Zhang, Changheng Yang) analyzing the potential of reusing water on Duke University campus.

Published in: Technology
1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,264
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
31
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The drought plaguing much of the Southeast has dried up these boat docks on Georgia's Lake Lanier.
  • Yellow color mean the most important
  • 匡大一點
  • Consider physical treatment for the treatment because it will be cheaper and easier to maintain than chemical treatment.
  • Prefer mechanical, less human maintenance
  • Why this as opposed to other membranes?
  • Based on earlier characteristics, the top line uses E. Coli to represent fecal coliform reduction for our purposes. “The UV dosage, a product of UV intensity and exposure time, is measured in microwatt second per square centimeter (μw s/cm2). The UV dosage required to achieve 3 Log reduction of E. coli suspension is 7000 μw s/cm2 for traditional low-pressure mercury vapor lamps verified by researchers.”
  • Greywater reuse proposal for duke university campus

    1. 1. Greywater Reuse on Duke’s Campus Natalya Polishchuk Liwei Zhang Changheng Yang 1 1
    2. 2. OutlineIntroductionSourcesTreatmentUse PlanConclusion 1 1
    3. 3. IntroductionWhat is greywater? Urban wastewater that includes  Baths, showers,  Hand basins, washing machines,  Dishwashers and kitchen sinks,  But excludes streams from toilets 1 1 http://green.harvard.edu/theresource/new-construction/design-element/water-efficiency/images/greywater-system_000.gif
    4. 4. IntroductionUN: Good grade water should not be used for purposes that can be served with a lower grade unless there is a surplusWater is becoming more scarceSerious drought in the Southeast in 2007 1 1 http://ndn3.newsweek.com/media/62/071219_NewDrought_wide-horizontal.jpg
    5. 5. Introduction Duke used 566.4 million gallons in 2007  Residential housing (11%)  Reused water (estimate: 40 % of residential housing)  68,300 gpd or 47 gpmDuke University, (April 25, 2008). Sustainability: What is Duke doing to conserve water?. Retrieved April 12,2009, from Duke Sustainability Web site: 1 1http://www.duke.edu/web/ESC/campus_initiatives/water/conservation.html
    6. 6. SourcesResidential Housing at Duke: Sinks Showers (hair collectors added) Washing machines (lint filters installed) 1 1
    7. 7. Sources Characteristics of the grey water Particle Total BOD COD TOC TSS size coliforms Mean 20 86 49 29 286 5.26 Standard deviation 6 23 13 34 142 0.80Unit: BOD, COD, TOC and TSS (mg L−1), Particle size (μm), Total coliforms ((log10CFU100 mL−1))(Winward et al. 2008) 1 1
    8. 8. North Carolina Regulations5 mg/L TSS Storage: 5 daymonthly, 10 mg/L detention pond plusTSS daily irrigation pond forMax fecal coliform overflow1/100 mL *Hydraulic loadingTreatment in <1.75”/weekduplicate 100’ vegetative bufferBack-up power to nearest dwellingsourceNo COD or BOD limit in North Carolina 1 1
    9. 9. TreatmentRaw grey waterBar screen Equalization tank Physical TreatmentDisinfection Reuse 1 1
    10. 10. TreatmentPhysical treatment methods and performances TSS Turbidity COD BOD Reference Processes In Out In Out In Out In Out Sand filter+ Ward (2000) Membrane+ - - 18 0 65 18 23 8 Disinfection Screening+ CMHC Sedimentation+ (2002) 67 21 82 26 - - - - Multi-media filter+Ozonation Gerba et al. Cartridge filter 19 8 21 7 - - - - (1995) UF membrane 35 18 - - 280 130 195 86 Sostar-Turk et al. (2005) NF membrane 28 1 0 30 1 226 15 - - 1
    11. 11. TreatmentMembrane filtration advantages: Easy to operate Moderate cost Removal rate meets regulationsNo biological treatment processes. No COD or BOD limit in North CarolinaThe disinfection process is needed To meet fecal coliform limit in North Carolina 1 1
    12. 12. TreatmentBar screen Coarse particles, Body hairs and Large-size items  Vegetable leaves  Eggshell pieces, etc) http://www.chishun.com.tw/image/barscreen.jpg 1 1
    13. 13. TreatmentTypical design parameters: (Tchobanoglous et al, 2002) 1 1
    14. 14. TreatmentMicrofiltration membrane Stainless metal membrane is used.Basic characteristics are in the following table: Metal membrane characteristics summary (Kim et al, 2007) Parameters Values Nominal pore 0.5μm radius (ri) Filter 0.222m length (L) Membrane 0.32m2 area (Am) Membrane 1.04×1010 m–1 resistance (Rm) 1 1
    15. 15. TreatmentImpact of fouling on the permeate fluxFollowing expression is applied to calculate the permeateflux when fouling is considered (Wiesner and Bottero,2007): ∆P J= (1) µ[ Rm (t ) + Rc × c (t )] δAssume the resistance of the membrane (Rm(t)) does not change withtime, thenRm(t)=const=1.04×1010 1/m. dp=286×10-6m△P=operation pressure=100kPa εc=0.4μ=viscosity of water=10-3kg.m/s 180(1 − ε c ) 2 Rc = = 1.238 × 1010 m −2Rc=resistance of the cake, d pε c3 2 1 1
    16. 16. TreatmentAssume δc(t) = J × C × t/ρ, J is the permeate flux (m3/(m2.s)) C is the mass concentration of particles (29×10-3kg/m3), ρ is the density of particles (1.01×103 kg/m3).  Put all values of parameters into expression (1), we have: 105 Pa J= kg −3 −1 −2 29 × 10−3 kg ×m −3 (2) 10 [1.04 ×10 m + 1.238 × 10 m ×J × 10 10 −3 ×] t m ×s 1.01× 10 kg ×m 3 Final expression: 0.00704 × (−2.08 ×106 + 2383.28 × 761690 + t ) J= (3) t 1 1
    17. 17. TreatmentThe curve of permeate flux vs. time: Critical Point:(1688 hours , 4.81×10-3 m3/m2s) 1 1
    18. 18. TreatmentParticle removal efficiency of the membraneRemoval Efficiency, % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 d≥ 15μm 13μm 10μm 8μm 5μm 2μm Particle size 1 (Kim et al, 2007) 1
    19. 19. Treatment Characteristics of the grey water: D mean=286μm, D 10=13μm Removal amount of particles (C be the concentration of TSS in influent ) (D>13μm) is C×90%×95%=0.855C (D<13μm) is C×10%×35%=0.035C(worst case: assume the removal efficiency of particles withDp=2μm can represent the overall removal efficiency of particles(D<13μm) ). Total Removal Efficiency = 0.855C + 0.035C = 89% C Meet North Carolina ∵TSS in influent=29mg/L, regulations (5 mg/L TSS monthly, 10 mg/L TSS daily) ∴TSS in effluent=3.19 mg/L 1 1
    20. 20. TreatmentComparison: Microfiltration membrane vs. Traditional sand filterKey Design Parameters: Parameters Value Flow rate (m3/s) 2.99×10-3 Bulk velocity (m/s) 6.67×10-3 Filter plan area (m2) 0.45 Depth of filter media (m) 0.762 Sand grain diameter (mm) 0.6 Porosity of filter bed 0.4 1 1
    21. 21. TreatmentThe particle removal rate of the filter be calculated as(Wiesner M. 2009): Final result:  3α ηT  removal rate=1-n/n0= 1 − exp  − 2 ×(1 − ε ) ×d ×L ÷ , where  c α is the affinity of the adsorbed particles to the filter media, εisthe porosity of the media, ηTis the collector efficiency, 1 1 dc is the diameter of the collector and L is the media depth.
    22. 22. TreatmentCollector efficiency (ηT) can beevaluated with the use of theexpression developedby Rajagopalan and Tien (1976): 1 1
    23. 23. TreatmentParticle removal efficiency of the membrane andthe sand filter: removal Removal rate Removal rate particle rate (membrane) (sand filter) diameter D=286μm (Dmean) >97% 100% D=13μm (D10) 95% 99.8% D=2μm 35% 46.4% The table shows that the particle removal efficiency of the sand filter is a little higher than the microfiltration membrane. Therefore, the sand filter can also work well in the filtration process. 1 1
    24. 24. Treatment Microfiltration cost Estimated between $400-800 (Keystone Filter Division) Sand filtration cost Estimated between $400-600 (Doheny’s water ware house)http://www.thomasnet.com/catalognavigator.html?cov=NA&what=microfiltration+membrane+price&heading=51 1 1170967&cid=141076&CNID=&cnurl=http%3A%2F http://www.waterwarehouse.com/Pool-Filters.html?gclid=%2Fkyfltr.thomasnet.com%2FCategory%2Ffine-sediment-
    25. 25. TreatmentHowever, compared with the membrane, a sand filterrequires a higher frequency of backflushing.Typical backflushing frequency of sand filters whentreating surface water:Rapid sand filter (widely used in potable water supplyfacilities; pressure-driven filtration process)—48-72hours (Salvato et al, 2003) (1688 hrs- MF at Duke)Therefore, microfiltration membrane is still a betterchoice. 1 1
    26. 26. DisinfectionThe advantage of UV Cheaper than chlorine according to the EPA. Does not create harmful chlorinated hydrocarbons Salt concentration is higher in recycled water, which can damage plants, especially in sprinkler irrigation. 1 1
    27. 27. Disinfection 1 1Lu, G., C. Li, et al. (2008).
    28. 28. Option: ROThe membrane has good total ion removal rate(>80%) (Yoon and Lueptow. 2005)However, the cost will be definitely high, due to alarge membrane area (344m2) is needed.Commercial price of RO membrane: $30.92/m 2 (FILMTEC Membranes product information,2009). Therefore, total price of the RO membraneis $10,636. 1 1
    29. 29. Use PlanNorth Carolina grey water reuse regulation:  Allowed  Not Allowed: Golf courses Parks, Toilets Cemeteries Residences, Fountains Highway medians Construction Sites http://www.dataflowsys.com/services/images/scada- http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Western_Freeway.jpg applications/golf-course-irrigation.jpg 1 1
    30. 30. Use Plan Duke uses reclaimed water from North Durham Water Reclamation Facility to water select plants  Advantages of grey water: Available water during droughts, when more reclaimed water must be sent to the lake Less energy use Less trucking water Learning opportunity for students Good publicityDuke University, (April 25, 2008). Sustainability: What is Duke doing to conserve water?. Retrieved April 12, 2009, f Duke Sustainability Web site: http://www.duke.edu/web/ESC/campus_initiatives/water/conservation.html 1 1
    31. 31. ConclusionsSource: on-campus residencesTreatment: Bar screen microfiltration membrane UV disinfectionUses: golf course irrigation street median irrigation 1 1
    32. 32. Thank YouQuestions? 1 1
    33. 33. ReferencesLi F., Wichmann K., Otterpohl R., 2009. Review of the technological approaches for grey water treatment and reuses. Science of the Total Environment, 407: 3439–3449Ward M., 2000. Treatment of domestic greywater using biological and membrane separation techniques. MPhil thesis, Cranfield University, UK.CMHC (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation), 2002. Final assessment of conservation Co-op’s greywater system. Technocal series 02–100, CHMC, Ottawa, Canada.Gerba C., Straub T., Rose J., et al, 1995. Water quality study of greywater treatment systems. Water Resour J., 18:78–84.Sostar-Turk S., Petrinic I., Simonic M., 2005. Laundry wastewater treatment using coagulation and membrane filatration. Resour.Conserv. Recycl., 44 (2):185–96.Tchobanoglous G., Burton F., Stensel D, et al, 2002. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. McGraw-Hill Professional, 1 1 USA
    34. 34. ReferencesDuke University, (April 25, 2008). Sustainability: What isDuke doing to conserve water?. Retrieved April 12,2009, from Duke Sustainability Web site:http://www.duke.edu/web/ESC/campus_initiatives/water/conservation.htmlLu, G., C. Li, et al. (2008). "A novel fiber optical devicefor ultraviolet disinfection of water." Journal ofPhotochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 92(1): 42-46.US EPA, (1992). Manual, Guidelines for Water Reuse.Washington, DC: US Agency for InternationalDevelopment. 1 1
    35. 35. ReferencesKim R., Lee S., Jeong J., et al, 2007. Reuse of greywater and rainwater using fiber filter media and metal membrane. Desalination, 202: 326–332Wiesner M., Bottero J., et al, 2007. Environmental Nanotechnology: Applications and Impacts of Nanomaterials. McGraw-Hill Professional, USAWiesner M. 2009. Class note of course: physical and chemical processes in Environmental Engineering.Rajagopalan R. and Tien C., 1976. Trajectory analysis of deep-bed filtration with the sphere-in-a-cell porous media model. AIChE J. 2(3): 523-533Winward. P.G. , Avery M. L., , Stephenson T, and Bruce Jefferson,2008. Chlorine disinfection of grey water for reuse: Effect of organics andparticles. Water Res. 42: 483–491. 1 1

    ×