I) What is ArsenicArsenic is a widely distributed element in .docx

I) What is Arsenic?
Arsenic is a widely distributed element in the earth's crust and
is recognized as a toxic and carcinogenic substance. Arsenic is
widely used as a pesticide, herbicide, wood preservative,
semiconductor material, and feed additive. These anthropogenic
pathways have introduced large amounts of arsenic into the
environment, increasing the concentration and distribution of
arsenic in environmental water bodies. In recent years, in some
countries, especially Bangladesh, China, and Mongolia drinking
water sources are found in concentrations that can lead to acute
and chronic human poisoning of arsenic. Therefore, the arsenic
in drinking water has caused great concern. Given the great
danger of arsenic to human health and the increasing severity of
arsenic pollution, in 1993, the WHO took the lead in the
indicator value of arsenic in drinking water from 50 μg / L to 10
μg / L. Subsequently, the European Union, Japan, the United
States, respectively, their drinking water arsenic standards for
10 μg / L.
1. Chemical properties of arsenic in water bodies
In the aqueous environment, the two common oxidation states of
arsenic are As(V) and As (III). (As(V) is oxygenated surface
water and As (III)is the main form of arsenic in groundwater,
while As(III) is the form of arsenic in anoxic groundwater.
When the pH was in the neutral range, As(III) was mainly
present in the form of H3 AsO3, while As(V) was present in the
form of H2 AsO4 – and HAsSO4 2-. Therefore, in the typical
pH range of water (pH = 5 to 8), As(V) exists in the form of
anions, while As (III) exists in the form of neutral molecules.
Therefore, the drinking water arsenic removal technology will
involve the removal of arsenic in 2 different
vale nice states and the presence of forms.

2. Research progress of the arsenic removal process
2.1 Coagulation and flocculation method
Coagulation and precipitation method because of its easy to use,
easy to grasp, and accept and become the most widely used, the
most widely used arsenic drinking water treatment method. The
most common coagulants are iron salts and aluminum salts.
Many studies have shown that the coagulation and precipitation
method in addition to the arsenic effect and the oxidation state
of arsenic in water, the initial concentration of arsenic, the type
and dose of coagulant, water quality conditions, and other
factors. as (Ⅲ) removal effect is poor As (V) removal rate is
higher. The oxidation of As (Ⅲ) to As (V) can improve the
removal rate of arsenic. When the initial concentration of As
(Ⅲ) <0∙8 mg/L, sodium hypochlorite 1∙25 mg/L can effectively
oxidize As (Ⅲ) into As (V) to achieve the same removal effect
as As (V). (1) If the use of perchlorate coagulant, it can replace
the sodium hypochlorite and iron salt 2 reagents to simplify the
treatment method and perchlorate oxidation capacity than
sodium hypochlorite, potassium permanganate, etc. stronger, in
the oxidation process will not produce secondary pollution. (2)
Taoyuan etc. (3) discovered suitable filtration measures such as
sand filtration can greatly improve the coagulant efficiency of
arsenic removal, which may be related to the adsorption of
arsenic by sand particles. But the main reason is that the solid-
liquid separation effect of sand filtration is obviously
This may be related to the adsorption of arsenic by sand
particles, but the main reason is that the solid-liquid separation
effect of sand filtration is significantly better than that of
sedimentation, which allows the tiny flocs to be better separated
from the water, resulting in lower arsenic concentration in the
effluent.
Meng and some other scientists (4) also found that sand
filtration could improve the removal of arsenic. Another way to
improve the efficiency of arsenic removal is to increase the

particle size of arsenic-containing flocs.
2.2Adsorption method
The adsorption method is a simple and easy technique, suitable
for large quantities and low arsenic concentrations in water
treatment systems. The method uses high surface area, and
insoluble solid materials as an adsorbent agent, physical
adsorption, chemical adsorption, and other effects of dissolved
arsenic in the water will be fixed on its surface. The adsorbent
mainly includes activated alumina. The adsorbent mainly
includes activated alumina, activated carbon, bone carbon,
zeolite, Natural or synthetic metal oxides, and their hydrated
oxides, etc.
According to the principle of the adsorption method, the larger
the surface area of the adsorbent, the stronger the adsorption
capacity. Mohan and other scientists (5) found the results of
arsenic removal studies with common adsorbents showed that
low-cost adsorbents (e.g., treated furnace agents, treated slag,
activated carbon developed from agricultural waste, needle iron
ore, etc.) were found to have good arsenic removal effects. In
recent years, the improvement of traditional adsorbents and the
development of new and efficient arsenic removal adsorbents
have been more active. The results showed that the removal of
As(III) and As(V) could reach 83.4% and 37.4% with Ca(OH)2
modification of waste wheat barley, which was higher than the
used NaOH to remove arsenic.
Natural iron, manganese ore, and manganese adsorbent are also
used to remove arsenic from drinking water. Iron cations in iron
oxides and hydroxyl groups composed of surface functional
groups (Fe-OH) can be positively charged through proton
association and dissociation, thus adsorbing arsenic in the form
of anions. Arsenic is in the form of ions [6]. Zero-valent iron is
an efficient adsorbent for pre-oxidizable arsenic agents. In the
presence of oxygen, zero-valent iron is rapidly oxidized in
water to iron hydroxide, which adsorbs arsenic from water.

Therefore, the removal rate of arsenic by zero-valent iron is
related to the content of iron hydroxide in water and the pH
value of water, and the removal rate of As(V) is higher than
As(III). (7) Berna et al confirmed that higher dissolved oxygen
(DO) and lower pH could accelerate the rate of zero-valent iron
corrosion and removal of arsenic by zero-valent iron.
Nanomaterials have particle diameters of 1 to 100 nm, and as a
new type of adsorbent, they have special physicochemical
characteristics and special properties that are superior to
traditional materials. Sabbatini et al [8] used iron oxide
nanoparticles for the adsorption of arsenic removal and found
them to be cost-effective and effective in removing arsenic. The
disadvantage of the adsorption method is that it is difficult to
recover, and not easy to regenerate, and the adsorption
efficiency decreases after regeneration. When some common
ions in water (such as phosphate, sulfate, chloride, fluoride,
etc.), these substances compete with arsenic for adsorption, thus
reducing the efficiency of arsenic removal.
2.3 Arsenic removal by ion exchange
Ion exchange has a good effect on the removal of As(V), while
As(Ⅲ) exists in the form of neutral molecules in the water body
so As(Ⅲ) is usually easy to penetrates the ion exchange. The
ability of ion exchange to remove As(V) depends mainly on the
spatial separation of adjacent charges in the resin, the mobility,
the extensibility of functional groups, and hydrophilicity.
The pH value was found to have a strong influence on the
removal of As(V). This is because as the pH value increases,
As(V) was converted from H2AsO4- to HAsO4 2- and the
selectivity for the strong alkali-type resin is more on divalent
anions than monovalent anions. In addition, the high
concentration of SO4 in the water, NO3-and Cl- and TDS
(greater than 1,000 mg/L) can also compete with As(V) then
lead to ion exchange failure. Therefore, the ion exchange
technique is more suitable for cleaner water bodies with less ion

strength.
2.4 New arsenic removal technology by membrane
2.4.1 Nanofiltration membrane
Nanofiltration is one of the promising arsenic removal
technologies, which could create higher water yield with lower
energy consumption and does not require any chemical
technology, so it is super suitable for small hydrology factories.
The removal mechanism of nanofiltration includes (1) the
spatial rejection of uncharged nanoscale components in the
membrane; (2) the repulsion effect of solution (same ion) and
membrane charge. Therefore, the retention of ions by NF
membranes is highly dependent on the membrane properties.
Vrijenhoeka et al [9] used NF-45 polyamide nanofiltration
membrane to study the effect of arsenic removal. The results
showed that when the mass concentration of arsenic was
between 10 and 316 μg/L, 60-90% of As(V) will be reversed.
However, the removal rate of As(III) was much lower than that
of As(V), and the removal rate decreased with the increase of
arsenic concentration in the influent water. In the presence of
0.01 mol/L NaCl, the removal rate of As(V) was significantly
increased, especially when the concentration of arsenic in the
influent water was small.
However, when Seidel et al. [10] repeated the above experiment
with the BQ01 type of sulfonated polysulfide nanofiltration
membrane, they found that the removal of As(V) was reduced
by about 5% in the presence of 0.01 mol/L NaCl. This indicates
that NaCl has a significant effect on the removal of As(V) and it
is determined by the membrane properties. The effect of pH on
the removal rate of arsenic by NF- 45 membrane showed that as
the pH of the solution increased, the removal rate of As(V) will
increase at the same time.
2.5 Pre-oxidation process

Many studies confirmed that the toxicity, solubility, and
mobility of As(III) are much greater than those of As(V).
Because As(III) usually exists in molecular form so the removal
rate of As(III) by various processes is much lower than that of
As(V). So when we remove arsenic from the groundwater, we
need pre-oxidized As(III) to As(V).
2.5.1 Pure pre-oxidation process
The redox unit of the As(III) - As(V) system is 0.560V,
therefore, neither aeration nor the addition of pure oxygen can
rapidly and effectively oxidize As(Ⅲ) to As(V), then the
addition of chemical oxidant is required. Due to the different
redox potentials (see Table 1) and the mechanism of oxidation
reaction, the oxidant in various water treatment
Due to the different redox potentials (see Table 1) and oxidation
mechanisms, the oxidation degree, and rate of As(III) oxidation
are different in water treatment.
Table 1.
In the range of pH = 6.3 to 8.3, both Cl2 and KMnO4 were able
to rapidly oxidize As(III) to As(V) within 40 s. Although the
presence of dissolved Mn2+, Fe2+, and sulfides in water and
TOC will slow down the oxidation rate, the complete oxidation
could be completed within 1 min. O3 indirectly oxidizes As(III)
by hydrolysis to produce -OH, so the oxidation rate is very fast.
However, the natural organic matter (NOM) in the water can
greatly slow down the rate of oxidation by trapping -OH.
Therefore, O3 is not suitable for the oxidation of As(III) in
heavily organically polluted waters; ClO2 can only limit oxidize
As(III); NH2Cl has almost no effect on the oxidation of As(III)
[11].
2.5.2 Oxidation and adsorption techniques

In recent years, the oxidation and adsorption of As(III) have
been combined, to greatly shorten the removal process. Zero-
valent iron is easy to get, and it is inexpensive, non-toxic, and
non-hazardous. The oxidation of As(III) has received much
attention from researchers [12-16]. Because the mechanism of
Fe(0) oxidation of As(III) is controversial, yet, studies [12-13]
show that it can be broadly explained as follows:
RI is H2O2, OH-, O2- or Fe(VI) those intermediate products
formed by the reaction of Fe(0), Fe(II), and dissolved oxygen.
1 Fe(0) + 1 /2 O2 + 2 H2O-(RI) → Fe(II) + H2O + 2 OH-,
2 Fe(II) + 1 /4 O2 + H2O-(RI) → Fe(III) + 1 /2 H2O + OH-
3 As(III) + RI → As(V) ;
4 Fe(III) + 3 H2O → Fe(OH) 3 + 3 H+ ;
5 adsorption of Fe(III) aggregates on As(III) and As(V) and co-
precipitation of HFO with As(III) and As(V).
Leupin et al [17] studied the oxidation and removal of As(III)
by Fe(0) in artificially groundwater with a mass concentration
of 500 μg/L As(III). The results confirmed that dissolved Fe(II)
at mass concentrations up to 8 mg/L was released to form HFO,
and almost all of As(III) was oxidized to As(V) and adsorbed on
the surface of HFO to be retained by the sand filter layer, which
reduced the mass concentration of arsenic in the effluent to 50
μg/L. Bang et al[18] showed that DO and pH had a significant
influence on the removal of arsenic from Fe(0). This is because
higher DO and lower pH can increase the decay rate of Fe(0).
Tyrovola et al[19] concluded that PO4 3- and NO3 - will slow
down the removal rate of arsenic, and the temperature from 20
to 40 ℃will determined the removal rate of arsenic.
The new technology of zero-valent iron oxidation and

adsorption is one of the most promising in recent years. Because
it is especially suitable for developing countries, especially
remote areas due to no chemical dosing required.
2.5.3 Biological oxidation technology
The bio-oxidation process has unparalleled advantages
compared to the normal physical-chemical pre-oxidation process
as it does not require the addition of chemical solutions it is
more economical and environmentally friendly therefore this
technology has a promising application for developing
countries. Ioannis et al [20] found that some common
microorganisms in groundwater, such as Gallionella
ferrooxidans and Leptothrix ochraceus, could oxidize Fe2+
while simultaneously oxidation As(III). The formation of
multiple complexes including Fe oxides, a significant amount of
organic matter, and bacteria was deposited on the surface of the
filter media to show unique retention of arsenic through unique
adsorption and co-precipitation. When the mass concentration of
As(III) in the influent water was 200-250 μg/L, Fe2+and dos
were 2.8 and 3.7 mg/L. After 2,000 BVs, the As(III) removal
capacity of the system was consistently higher than 95%.
Biological oxidation provides a new idea for the development of
arsenic removal technology.
II. Conclusion
Most of the methods are mainly used to remove As(V) from
water and it’s less effective for the removal of As(III) in water.
Therefore, the common practice in the process of arsenic
removal is to pre-oxygenate As(III) to As(V) before removal.
The methods of oxidation are chemical oxidation and biological
oxidation and current chemical oxidants are chlorine, ozone,
hydrogen peroxide, potassium permanganate, and other
manganese compounds. Chemical oxidation is prone to the
formation of residues and other byproducts, which will create

secondary pollution and increase treatment costs. In recent
years, many researchers research microbial pre-oxidation and
attempt to promote the use of bio-oxidation [21].
Conclude, each method could use in different conditions of
application and each of them has its advantages and
disadvantages. In general, the adsorption method can be much
more successful in the removal of arsenic. However, there are
still many problems that need to be solved, such as most of the
adsorbents can only effectively adsorb As (V) and the efficiency
of As (III) adsorption is generally not high. Therefore, As (III)
must be pre-oxidation to As (V) which makes the treatment
process of arsenic becomes complicated. And the presence of
phosphate, sulfate, silicate, and fluoride substances in drinking
water will easily compete with the arsenic adsorption site then
which will reduce the efficiency of the removal of arsenic.
Therefore, these substances need to be removed before
treatment. This will also increase the treatment steps. In
addition, the strong adsorption between the adsorbent and
arsenic will let adsorption to be difficult to regenerate, recover,
and reuse. The adsorption that consists of arsenic is difficult to
meet the environmental soundness requirements and the
problem of subsequent treatment is not easy to solve.
Many new adsorbents have high adsorption capacities but are
generally complex and costly to manufacture so there is still a
considerable gap in the practical application. The problem with
the ion exchange method is the amount of ion exchanger is
generally large and the ion exchange capacity is not that high,
and the practicality of the new ion exchange agent has yet to be
verified. Although the biochemical method has been proven to
be feasible in experiments, it has not been reported used in the
real life. The efficiency of arsenic removal by
electrocoagulation is high, but this method requires special
equipment to operate the technical conditions are also high
requirements for workers to use it.
The coagulation and precipitation method of arsenic removal is
influenced by the efficiency of solid-liquid separation. The

traditional precipitation process or simple sand filtration is
difficult to make the effluent arsenic down to 10μｇ／so it is
necessary to find new techniques to achieve good solid-liquid
separation. The microfiltration membrane has good solid-liquid
separation but because most of the arsenic in drinking water is
in a dissolved state then the effect of arsenic removal by the
membrane is not ideal. If the coagulation process and
microfiltration technology are combined, using microfiltration
membrane technology to replace the coagulation and
precipitation method in the precipitation process or using the
coagulation process as pretreatment of microfiltration
membrane technology will absorb the advantages of both
coagulation and microfiltration technologies to remove arsenic.
The coagulation and microfiltration process firstly transfers the
dissolved arsenic in drinking water from the liquid phase to the
solid phase then uses a microfiltration membrane to retain the
arsenic-containing flocs by its good solid-liquid separation
effect. The water will filter the membrane after drinking water
achieves the standard. The coagulation microfiltration process
has a good effect on arsenic removal because of its low-cost,
high-water production rate, and simple operation. Therefore, the
process is a better choice to remove arsenic from drinking
water. At present, the research on the coagulation
microfiltration arsenic removal process is still at the initial
stage, but as the price of membrane components continues to
fall, the coagulation microfiltration process in drinking water
will have more favorable conditions and a better environment.
III. The background of groundwater with radium
Currently, the pollution of surface water sources by industrial
and agricultural wastewater, domestic sewage, etc. is becoming
increasingly serious. About 1/3 of the world's population draws
drinking water from polluted water sources. Of the more than
500 rivers in China, about 400 are polluted to varying degrees,
and it is well-known that there is a correlation between water

sources and disease. Therefore, the choice and use of unpolluted
water sources, for the miasma of people's health are extremely
important, groundwater, because it is in the ground, through the
physical, chemical, and biological, especially the purification
process of the soil, generally not easy to be directly
contaminated by the environment, take my hometown China as
one example, China's vast territory, with an abundance of
groundwater resources, from ancient times, there is a good
tradition of taking water, but in the choice of groundwater
sources, people just take care of chemical pollution and ignore
Radium pollution.
Although the health effects of drinking low-level radioactive
contaminated water are not obvious in the short term, the
property of radium is very similar to calcium in the body's
metabolism and will accumulate in the bones after being
ingested by the body. Due to the radioactive decay of radium,
there is an increased chance of bone tumors and other cancers.
Some people believe that there may be no radiation safety dose
for pavement. But in fact, Radium levels in farm wells ranged
from 0-6.4 picocurie or pCi/L. MCL is 5 pCi/L. Gross alpha
ranges from 1.4-19.4 pCi/L, and MCL is 15 pCi/L.
3. Mechanism of radium removal from groundwater
The pH value of groundwater is generally between 5-8 and
soluble radium exists in the form of Ra2*. In the presence of
SO4 2-, Ra2+ is adsorbed on the heavy product stone according
to the following reaction: BaSO4+Ra2+=Ba(Ra)SO4+Ba2+. Soft
manganese reaction with potassium permanganate and in
alkaline media, water, and manganese dioxide are produced that
let H+ become exchangeable ions so the following reaction can
occur with Ra2+.
Its Ra 2+ plate is adsorbed on soft manganese or qualified
sawdust.
Zeolite is a three-dimensional shelf-like pin composed of SiO4,

or AlO4, due to Al2+, and Si4+ replacement, excess negative
charge is generated in the pins structure, which leads to cations
such as Na+, K+, Ca2+, etc. entering the pins through the
cavities to maintain the charge balance. In solutions, when the
cations with balanced charge in the cavities diffuse along the
pores, it is possible to exchange with the appropriate cations in
water (such as Ra2+), to achieve the purpose of removal from
the solution, of course, does not exclude the factor of
adsorption on the surface activity of the adsorbent.
4. Some properties when removing radium
4.1
When removing Radium with barite, the concentration of SO4
2- will be influenced a lot. It is generally believed -satisfactory
results are obtained when the So4 2- concentration is >500
mg/L.
4.2
Standing stones, especially natural zeolite-like ores, have
been widely used in water treatment processes. It has a good
effect on Ra removal. However, in the fixed filter column
adsorption, it is easy to produce bubbles and form a short
circuit, so it has to be flushed frequently to guarantee normal
adsorption.
4.3
Soft manganese ore has the characteristics of a wide source,
good physical properties, and long service life. Using it as the
treatment material, not only removal rate of Ra" is high, but
also the purification process is simple, and the treatment cost is
low. Due to the contact catalytic oxidation on the surface of soft
manganese ore, Fe2* and Mn+ contained in groundwater are
oxidized first, and then precipitates such as Fe(OH): and
Mn(OH), are formed and retained. Thus, while removing Ra,
Fe+ and Mn2+ are also effectively removed. The process of soft

manganese ore removal of Ra can be easily integrated with the
purification of the existing water supply system. For example,
by adding a soft manganese layer to an ordinary sand filter, the
purpose can be achieved.
Therefore, the soft manganese ore is the groundwater removal
Ra is an extremely ideal adsorption material.
4.4
Potassium permanganate-activated sawdust also has an excellent
effect on the adsorption of Ra, which is like soft manganese ore
in substance. Because of its higher surface activity, its
penetration capacity and penetration volume are larger than that
of soft manganese ore. But, due to its high production cost, poor
physical properties and easy decay of wood chips, etc., it does
not seem to be superior to using soft manganese ore.
5. methods to remove radium
The addition of barium chloride reagent is important for the
removal of Ra in water. On one hand, the presence of sulfate in
the water can make Bacl2 which is added to form BaSO4 in a
short time and BaSO4 has a strong capacity to absorb Ra. In
addition, since Ba2+ and Ra2+ have similar ion radii (1 4.3 nm
and 1 5.3 nm) so the adsorption of radium by barium sulfate can
occur as follows
Ba S04 + Ra2+ = B a (Ra) S 04 + B a2 +Mn 2+ in the
alkalinization of water will occur the reaction and the product
Mn(OH)2 is easily oxidized by oxygen to form Mn(OH)2
Mn 2 + + 2 OH- = Mn (O H) 2
Mn(O H)2 + l/2 O2= Mn O (O H) 2
Therefore, the air aeration operation can accelerate the Mn2+
precipitation [3]. In addition, in alkaline media, Mn (OH)2 has a
positive effect on removing Ra 2+ and purification of Ra2+ in
water.

6. Conclusion
With barite, soft manganese ore, potassium permanganate
activated sawdust, artificial zeolite, etc. as adsorbent materials,
the removal of Ra was out for the groundwater of a factory. Soft
manganese ore has the characteristics of good physical
properties, wide source, and long service life. Using it as an
adsorbent material for Ra, it has a high removal rate, a simple
purification process, and low treatment cost, it can effectively
remove Fe2+ and Mn+ from groundwater while removing Ra, so
it is an extremely ideal adsorption material.
image1.png
image2.png
image3.png
image1.png
image2.png
Introduction: Comment by Syed Hashsham: Let us talk about
what this chapter should look like. As written it does NOT
satisfy the requirements!
Engineering Dean Leo Kempel led to the construction of one
new engineering and digital innovation building and the board
unanimously also approved it during the meeting on June 24,
2022. In his opinion, this will better support the requirements of
students and could also provide technical support for the new
area which is not related to the campus before which include
quantum engineering, advanced manufacturing, and
semiconductors. This will provide a better space for more and
more students in MsuMSU. The location is at the current urban
landscape building. This project is set by six colleges and six
areas. The colleges are Eli Broad College of Business, the
Colleges of Arts and Letters, Communication Arts and Sciences,

Engineering, Natural Science, and Social Science, and the six
areas are hydrology, environment, structures, pavement,
transportation, and geotechnology. Comment by Syed
Hashsham: Always write the full form at first instance and then
abbreviate at subsequent uses e.g., Michigan State University
(MSU)...
For students’ safe and healthy each area has its regulations. But
transportation, water, and the environment are much more
important in all of the areas that need to care about. For the
transportation part, it needs to fix the regulations of MDOT,
AASHTO, and Ingham County. Those will make sure
transportation is good enough to let the car drive on it. For the
water part, it not only needs to fix the regulations of US EPA/
MDEQ, and Rules of Ingham County Drain Commissioner but
also needs to fix the standards of AWWA, ASTM, NSF, The
Public Health and Safety Company, and GLUMRB Standards.
For environmental regulation, it has to pass the medical waste
regulatory act (MWRA) to regulate the requirements of medical
waste. To make sure it will not pollute our environment and our
water.
The environment is the basis for our life, so we need to make
sure we have a clean and safe environment for us to live so we
need to take much more care of it. Radioactivity is super bad for
living things’ health. Such as, it will let living things growth
abnormal. Even it will influence the genetic order and will
heredity to the offspring. Worst, it will let people get cancer.
So, we must remove it from the water that we drink on campus.
And the regulation range of Radium levels in farms’ wells is
from 0-6.4 pCi/L. For MCL is 5 pCi/L. The ranges of Gross
alpha from 1.4-19.4 pCi/L and MCL is 15 pCi/L. We must fix
this requirement because it will directly influence our body
condition. By the MSU water quality report 2017, there some
wells are above this regulation so they directly stop working
because if students drink water from these wells, then it will
directly influence the condition of their health. These have
some methods that we could use to remove radium. For

example, it could be removed by lime softening, sorption onto
manganese dioxide-based floc, oxidation, coagulation, reverse
osmosis, cation exchange softening, precipitation with barium
sulfate, electrodialysis (ED), and Electrodialysis Reversal
(EDR). It will be much higher radioactivity in the treatment
residuals if a higher concentration of radium is in the original
water with a much more effective removal process. There has
one limitation for radioactivity in solid wastes and there has
different decomposition, methods for different conditions. If
below the standard, then it could be decomposition in the
landfill, and if it is above the regulation level then it must be
disposed of in a hazardous waste site. Comment by Syed
Hashsham: When talking about the key aspects, avoid such
general overarching statements. Your first para is where such
things might fit but in a 2-page Introduction the length of
general information should be limited to bare minimum
necessary!
Arsenic is another toxic element that will bad influence living
things. Such as, it will be toxic to all living things and push
humans to get cancer. The serious degree let world health
organization list it as the first group that causes humans to get
cancer. So, we need to care about it to avoid arsenicosis. This
word means different types of skin lesions and cancers. So, we
need to take care of it because we may inhale arsenic through
our daily activities- such as drinking water. If we intake more
than 50 μg/L in drinking water for a long time, then it may
cause different types of cancers in humans. The regulation of
the World Health Organization (WHO) in drinking water is
10ppb by combining all influenced factors such as the economic
part. But it is still bad for human health, so we need to reduce
the arsenic level down to 2-6 ppb. The best condition that is
considered by our health condition is a maximum contaminant
level was 2 parts per billion (ppb). So, we must remove it from
our drinking water. The traditional methods for removing it are
oxidation, coagulation-flocculation, adsorption, ion exchange,
and membrane technologies. But by technology development, an

advanced method was created – application nanoparticles.
Comment by Syed Hashsham: The text here is better suited
for the Literature Review chapter. This chapter should focus on
what the charges are for you as a ENE team member
Because of their high specific surface area, high reactivity, and
high specificity, nanomaterials are used to repair water that is
polluted by heavy metals and arsenic. If the initial
concentration of arsenic is lower then we could use CNTs to
remove it because CNTs only need a few amounts of material,
which implies less material cost. It mainly could be used to
analyze the organic contaminants before concentration and
remove recalcitrant compounds. Second, Titanium-based
nanoparticles are super good at removing arsenic and oxidation
of As (III). Not only it could balance arsenite and arsenate in a
short period, but also it has a powerful absorption capacity.
Conclude, it is super-efficient to reduce arsenic. At a balanced
state, only 20% of arsenic compounds cannot be absorbed by
nano-adsorbent. At the same time, it could transfer arsenite to
arsenate at a high speed and release oxygen to the surround.
Another nano-adsorbent in arsenic removal is hydrous titanium
dioxide nanoparticles. It has an advantage in absorbents for
AS(III) without transfer oxidation to AS(V) or change PH
whatever before the adsorption or after. But it has some
drawbacks – it is easier to dispersion in the air because of its
size.
Iron-based nanoparticles are one important kind of
nanomaterials that could treat arsenic-contaminated water. And
water is one common kind of iron-based nanoparticle. Because
it includes zero-valent iron nanoparticles and iron oxide
nanoparticles, and both have lots of influence on their
capability to remove the contaminants. Such as zero-valent iron
nanoparticles could form a donor-acceptor bond in the remove
arsenic reaction. Iron oxide nanomaterials are used more and
more commonly when removing arsenic because of their
efficiency. It is also easier to take out from the water solution
because of its magnetic property so which makes sure it is

easier to use and it could exceed nearly all the arsenate from all
water materials at the same time. That is why it is used more
and more commonly. There still has some other metal-based
nanoparticles to remove arsenic-ceria nanoparticles, zirconium
oxide nanoparticles, and disposal of arsenic-contaminated
nanoparticles.
By considering economic conditions adsorbent looks to be the
top choice. Because metal-based nanoparticles’ maximum
adsorption capacity is still equal although after reuse and
regeneration. Moreover, PH pH is one key point that will be
influenced in the desorption of metals from adsorbents. The
drawbacks for metal-based nanoparticles are they usually
consist of tiny particles so they must aggregate together to
achieve a stable state, but it will decrease their adsorption
capacity and reactivity at the same time because of increasing
their surface area. So, we could put nanoparticles in the porous
materials or create and combine the micro nanostructured
sorbents. Both will balance the high adsorption capacity and
nanoparticle stability.
1
Intake and Wastewater Treatment Systems Design
For Ellison Brewery & Spirits
Presented to the
Faculty of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department

Michigan State University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the degree
Bachelor of Science
By
2
Table of Contents
List of Tables 3
List of Figures 3
Executive Summary 4
I. Introduction 5

Problem Statement 5
Overview 5
Environmental Impacts 8
Reliability Requirements 8
Permits 8
II. Brewery Intake Water 11
Water Demand 11
Water Quality 12
Brewing Water Profiles 16
Intake Water Treatment Options 18
Activated Carbon Filter Design 20
III. Brewery Wastewater 22
Side Streaming 22
Lagoon Treatment 24
Aerobic Treatment 24
Oxidation Ditches 26
Direct Sewer Discharge 26
IV. Wastewater Treatment Design 28

Assumptions 28
Mechanisms of Anaerobic Digestion 30
Buffering Tank 32
Anaerobic Digester 33
Biogas Generation 37
Effluent Water Quality 39
Pump Design 41
V. Sewer Collection System 42
VI. Conclusion 45
VIII. Appendix 46
Pump Design Hand Calculations 46
Summary Flow Chart 47
3
List of Tables
Table 1: Typical analysis of conditioned water from LBWL
15

Table 2: Common “Brewing Salts” 16
Table 3: Summary of target brewing water profiles 17
Table 4: Surcharge examples 27
Table 5: Comparison of typical brewery wastewater streams
29
Table 6: Important design parameters for UASB Reactors 35
Table 7: Comparison of treated effluent 40
Table 8: EPANET 2.0 output tables for links and nodes 42
Table 9: Sewer System Capacities 44
Table 10: Treatment process cost comparison 45
List of Figures
Figure 1: Location of Ellison Brewery & Spirits in East
Lansing, MI 6
Figure 2: Map of proposed expansion site 7
Figure 3: Specific pollutant limitations under Meridian
Township Sewer Discharge Permit 10
Figure 4: Typical brewery water use per department 11
Figure 5: 2016 Drinking Water Quality Report be ELMWSA
13
Figure 6: Relative dechloramination performance of carbon

filters 22
Figure 7: Spent Grain generation process 23
Figure 8: Activated Sludge System 25
Figure 9: Summary flow chart for anaerobic digestion
mechanisms 31
Figure 10: Process water buffering tanks 33
Figure 11: Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactor
34
Figure 12: Example COD removal efficiency from comparative
brewery 38
Figure 13: Bell & Gossett NRF Series pump performance curves
41
Figure 14: Meridian Sewer Collection Network 43
Figure 15: Construction Schedule 46
4
Executive Summary
Ellison Brewery & Spirits have proposed an expansion of their
current brewing facility to occupy
a 90,000 ft2 piece of cleared land east of their current location

on Dawn Avenue. The new facility will
produce 50,000 barrels of beer (bbl) annually. This will require
approximately 29,726 gallons of water
per day, and generate approximately 21,233 gallons of
wastewater every day. Ellison Brewery is
currently discharging their wastewater into the municipal sewer
collection system. They are seeking
alternative intake and wastewater treatment options to handle
the large flows of high strength waste
expected from the new facility, and remove chloramine and
chloride content from their municipal
intake water supply.
Several wastewater treatment options were analyzed for their
feasibility at Ellison Brewery:
• Facultative Lagoon Treatment
• Aerobic “Activated Sludge” Treatment
• Oxidation Ditch Treatment
• Direct Sewer Discharge
• Anaerobic Digestion
Several water intake treatment options were analyzed for their
feasibility at Ellison Brewery:
• Boiling

• Filtration
o Reverse Osmosis; Activated Carbon; Deionization
• Dilution
Granular activated carbon filtration was selected as the best
option for intake water treatment. The
filter was designed to use a catalytically modified coconut shell
activated media with high porosity that
will be capable of adsorbing chloride and removing chloramine
through the chemisorption process. A
U.S Water Systems’ Fusion Superfilter Commercial Catalytic
Carbon Filter 094-CSF was selected, and will
cost $995 - $1795.
Two wastewater handling and treatment methods are proposed.
The practical and cheaper solution
is to continue discharging untreated waste directly into the
sewer collection system. However, the scope
of the project required the design of an anaerobic digester
treatment system. An Upflow Anaerobic
Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactor will treat water to within the
limits of the Meridian Township Sewer
Discharge Permit. The effluent BOD concentration narrowly
exceeds the permit limit. However, the

municipality may be willing to extend the permit limits, or
impose a reduce surcharge. The total cost of
anaerobic treatment will be between $738,330 - $1,249,365.
5
Introduction
Pelfrey Pathway consultants have been tasked with designing a
1.1-mile long pathway from
Hagadorn Road at Shaw Lane to its termination at the
intersection of Grand River Avenue and Park Lake
Road. The project includes the design of a single span bridge
that crosses the Red Cedar River, and
approximately 1500 feet of wooden boardwalk. The project also
requires rehabilitation strategies for
sections of Grand River Avenue, Hagadorn Road, Dawn
Avenue, and Northwind Drive, and the vertical
and horizontal alignment of all path sections. A storm water
drainage and detention system will also be
designed for the area at the end of Dawn Avenue. Additionally,
the possible expansion of Ellison

Brewery & Spirits will require the design of an intake and
wastewater treatment system. This project
represents the first phase of a trail system that will connect to
the Lansing River Trail through Michigan
State University, and will eventually continue northeast to Lake
Lansing Road.
Problem Statement
The scope of work for the environmental engineer on this
project includes designing a water
treatment system that will condition the potable water
purchased from the East Lansing – Meridian
Water & Sewer Authority for use in the brewing process. The
design of a wastewater treatment system
is required to handle the large volume of high strength brewery
wastewater produced by the potential
expansion. As part of the MSU Senior Design class
requirements, the detailed design of an anaerobic
digester for treating brewery wastewater must be provided
alongside a practical plan for the handling of
Ellison’s wastewater.
Overview
Ellison Brewery and Spirits opened its doors on October 2nd,

2015, and have been making
approximately 3000 - 5500 barrels of beer a year. The craft
beer industry made up 12.3% of the $107.6
billion U.S. beer market in 2016, and Ellison is taking
advantage of the craft beer craze by expanding
their production facility to 50,000 sq. ft., with an anticipated
capacity of 50,000 barrels of beer/year.
(Mercer,2017) The expansion will require the consideration of
impacts on the local ecosystem,
infrastructure and community, and re-licensing and permitting
of the company’s facility operations and
discharge plan. A considerable scale up of water consumption
and wastewater production will demand
creative and efficient treatment practices. As the brewery
expansion is not yet operational, this report
will put to work engineering judgement in the determination of
basic assumptions needed to design the
required systems. This report will compare alternative intake
and wastewater treatment systems with
the goal of satisfying the scope of the class, permit
requirements, and the possibility of the real life
implementation of a brewery expansion in this area. Figure 1
shows the current location of Ellison
Brewery & Spirits at the south end of Dawn Avenue. The

pathway will travel along the river and turn
northeast near the brewery to follow the train tracks to its phase
one termination point at Park Lake
Road.
6
Figure 1: Location of Ellison Brewery and Spirits in East
Lansing, MI.
The proposed expansion area for the brewery is east of the
current facility, and composes
90,000 square feet of parking and green space. Figure 2
highlights the available space for the brewery
expansion, and identifies its orientation with respect to the
pathway. The development of the new
brewery facility will influence the drainage profile of the area,
and will affect the design of a new storm
water management system.

7
Figure 2: Map of proposed expansion site. 90,000 sq. ft. is
available, but only 50,000 sq. ft. will be used
for the production facility.
8
Environmental Impacts
The proposed location for the expansion of the brewery will not

disturb any protected wetland
locations. Since the location already contains a parking area and
shopping center, it is unlikely that any
protected species will be threatened. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service monitors threatened and
endangered species across the country, and lists the protected
species in region of Ingham County
where the brewery will be located. Three species are listed as
either threatened or endangered in
Ingham County. The Indiana Bat, Northern Long-Eared Bat, and
Eastern Massasauga Snake. The
endangered Indiana Bat’s “summer habitat includes small to
medium river and stream corridors with
well-developed riparian woods and woodlots within 1 to 3 miles
of small to medium rivers and streams”.
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 2017) The brewery is in relatively
close proximity to the Red Cedar River, but the
proposed expansion is not anticipated to have a negative impact
on this species. The immediate river
area will remain undisturbed, and no tree removal will be
required for the brewery expansion.
Reliability Requirements
Ellison Brewery & Spirits has very limited reliability

requirements. The temporary shutdown of
the brewery itself would have an immediate economic effect on
the company’s employees, owners,
suppliers, and product vendors, but would not create any
emergencies in the markets it serves. As will
be seen later in the report, the production of spent grain from
the brewing process will be provided to
local farmers for animal feed. An interruption in production
could have a negative impact on this
relationship, but is unlikely to cause any long-term damage.
On the other hand, the brewery will rely heavily on the
consistent and predictable quality and
supply of potable water and grains. The system for intake water
treatment will be limited to dealing
with a quality of water that meets the standards of the Safe
Drinking Water Act. The brewery will be
unable to operate in the case of water shortages or interruptions
to the distribution network that
services the brewery. In the same way, the brewery will be
reliant on the access and availability of
municipal wastewater treatment. The brewery will be able to
treat wastewater on site, but only to limits
of the Meridian Township Sewer Discharge Permit. The brewery
will not treat wastewater to the

standards of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit that regulates the
discharge of effluent into waters of the United States.
Permits
Brewing beer and discharging wastewater requires licenses and
regulating permits. Meridian
Township, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission (MLCC),
Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
are the regulatory bodies overseeing the
production of beer, and the treatment and discharge of
wastewater. Ellison Brewery & Spirits is
currently licensed as a Microbrewery by the MLCC. This is
enough for their current production level, but
the license restricts their annual production to 30,000 barrels.
Ellison will need to apply for a Brewer
License that permits the unlimited manufacture of beer in
Michigan.
9

The EPA enforces some common legal drivers under the Clean
Water Act that impact the treatment
of wastewater produced by the brewing process.
• Effluent Limitations Guidelines: national standards for
industrial wastewater discharges to
surface waters and publicly owned treatment works.
• Pre-Treatment Streamlining rule: pre-treatment programs for
the control of industrial
discharges into sewage collection systems
• NPDES Permit Program: regulating point sources (single,
identifiable sources such as pipes or
man-made ditches) that discharge pollutants into U.S. waters.
• Sewage Sludge (Biosolids) Rule: requirements for the final
use or disposal of sewage sludge.
• Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Impaired Waters
Rule: states, territories, and authorized
tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters that are
too polluted or degraded to meet
set water standards.
The MDEQ has the authority from the U.S. EPA to administer
the National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. This program is
designed to control the discharge of
pollutants into surface waters. The MDEQ also plays an
important role in the licensing of treatment
plant operators and septage haulers, and the control of industrial
pollutants into publicly owned
treatment works. In addition to wastewater regulations, the FDA
regulates food and food ingredients
(including breweries) under The Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FDCA). This act allows the agency
to “enter and inspect, at reasonable times, within reasonable
limits, and in a reasonable manner, any
facility, vehicle, equipment, material, container, and labeling
used to manufacture, process, pack, hold,
or transport food. The FDA also regulates container labeling,
and the use of spent grains from the
brewing process for use in animal feed.
Meridian Township will be the agency most closely regulating
the discharge of wastewater from
Ellison Brewery. It will be necessary for the brewery to apply
for, and acquire, a Sewer Discharge Permit
from Meridian Township. Figure 3 lists the pollutants regulated
under the permit.

10
Figure 3: The specific pollutant limitations set under Meridian
Township’s Sewer Discharge Permit
In addition to the pollutant limitations, the permit places
restrictions on temperature and pH.
The temperature in the effluent cannot exceed 40° C (104° F),
and the pH cannot be lower than 5.5 or
higher than 10. (Ingham County Code Index)
11
Brewery Intake Water

Water Demand
The abundance of clean water in the United States has
contributed to the rise of microbreweries
over the past 20 years, and the cost of water and wastewater
disposal have heavily contributed to
innovation in efficiency in every step of the brewing process.
Beer is about 95% water in composition,
but the water used to produce a bottle of beer is much greater
than the volume of water in the beer
alone. Water usage varies widely across brewers, but according
to the Brewers Association, the U.S.
average is approximately 7 barrels of water for every barrel of
beer produced. (Brewers Association)
Figure 4 shows the typical distribution of brewery water use as
reported to Brewers Association.
Figure 4: Typical brewery water use per department.
Ellison Brewery and Spirits currently uses several optimization
and recycling best practice
methods to increase efficiency and reduce water usage.
However, for the sake of this project it will be
assumed that the national average of 7 barrels of water to 1

barrel of beer will be reflective of the water
demand once the expanded facility becomes operational.
12
It is easier to grasp the volume of water necessary to produce
the anticipated 50,000 barrels of
beer if familiar units are used.
1 Barrel = 31 Gallons
50,000 Barrels of Beer = (50,000 * 31) = 1,550,000 Gallons of
Beer per Year
Multiplying this annual beer production figure by the industry
average water use of 7 to 1
results in an annual water demand:
1,550,000 Gallons of Beer = (1,550,000 * 7) = 10,850,000
Gallons of Water Annually
As shown in Figure 4, the actual brewing of beer is not the only
use of water in the brewing
process. Therefore, it is assumed for this project that water will
be used consistently every day of the
year. Dividing the annual water demand by 365 days in a year

will give the average daily water use.
Average Daily Water Use:
10,850,000 Gallons / 365 days = 29,726 Gallons of Water per
Day
This figure includes some ancillary water usage for any
drinking faucets or restrooms in the
production facility, but does not consider the water demand
from any potential kitchen or bar service
areas. Including a kitchen or bar would increase the average
daily water demand. However, the
proposed Ellison expansion will be for production only, and no
onsite food or beverage services will be
considered.
Water Quality
Ellison Brewery and Spirits purchases its water from the East
Lansing – Meridian Water & Sewer
Authority (ELMWSA), and will likely continue to get their
water from this provider. The East Lansing –
Meridian Water & Sewer Authority gets their water from 29
wells that are approximately 400 feet deep.
Lime is added to treat for hardness, and Ferric Chloride
chemically removes fine particulates from

suspension. The water then passes through a sand filter to polish
the turbidity and hardness of the
water. The water goes through a disinfection process before
distribution where Chloramine and Fluoride
are added. Figure 5 shows the results of a 2016 water quality
report issued by The East Lansing –
Meridian Water & Sewer Authority, and Table 1 offers a basis
for mineral and chloramine levels from a
report issued by Lansing Board of Water and Light. (2016
Water Quality)
13
Figure 5: 2016 Drinking Water Quality Report by The East
Lansing – Meridian Water & Sewer Authority
14

15
Table 1: Typical analysis of conditioned water from the Lansing
Board of Water and Light
While the ELMWSA does a fine job of producing consistently
potable water for use by the
community, Ellison must further treat the incoming water before
it is used for brewing beer.
16
Brewing Water Profiles
Different types of beer call for different types of water. From
IPAs to Stouts, the chemical profile

of the incoming water must be customized for the best possible
product. The above water quality and
test report shows the amount of fluoride and chloramines
present in the water. These must be removed
in order to achieve the ideal water profile for brewing. Ellison
Brewery & Spirits filters their incoming
water and adds “brewing salts” like Calcium Carbonate (Chalk),
Calcium Sulfate (Gypsum), Calcium
Chloride, Magnesium Sulfate (Epsom Salt), and Sodium
Bicarbonate (Baking Soda). Table 2 shows some
of the common salts used for water adjustment in brewing.
(Palmer, John, 2017)
Table 2: Common “Brewing Salts” used by brewers to adjust
incoming water before use in process
A range of hardness, alkalinity, and pH is necessary in the
composition of the water used in the
brewing process. Breweries commonly treat their intake water
to remove minerals and chloramines,
and adjust mineral levels to create an ideal water profile for the
objective beer type. Table 3
summarizes some of the various target water profiles used by
brewers. These are not strict guidelines,

as brewers must make adjustments for brewing processes,
ingredient chemistry, and flavor goals.
17
Table 3: Summary of target brewing water profiles (all values
measured in mg/L = ppm)
18
Intake Water Treatment Options

Understanding the intake water quality, and setting goals for the
profile of usable brewing water is
only half the battle. Brewers need to be able to adjust the
mineral content in order to create the right
brewing environment. Therefore, it is often necessary to
perform some amount of pre-treatment on the
intake water. Three common options are boiling, filtration (by
means of reverse osmosis and deionizing
techniques), and dilution. (MoreBeer!, 2013)
• Boiling
Boiling the intake water is an easy treatment step, and has
advantages that can make it
useful for small batch micro brewing or home brewing. Boiling
reduces carbonate levels by
precipitating out calcium and magnesium. This process can
reduce hardness. Boiling also
removes dissolved oxygen, and can reduce chlorine levels.
Chlorine is a common disinfectant
added by treatment facilities, and if used in brewing can react in
the mash to produce
chlorophenols that can give the beer an “off” flavor.
On the downside, boiling also removes calcium from the

brewing water. This process
raises the pH, and can negatively affect the gelatinization of
starch granules. Boiling also comes
with a high energy demand, a long time to complete the pre-
treatment process, and a
significant space requirement.
• Filtration
o Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis is the process of forcing water through
membrane filters to remove
organics, inorganics, microbes, and some minerals. Reverse
osmosis can be a very effective way
of softening water. RO comes with a higher initial capital
investment, but can be an affordable
way of pre-treating large volumes of water over a long period.
However, the RO process does
little to remove chlorine, and should be combined with carbon
filtration.
o Carbon Filtration
Commonly used filters contain activated carbon, and a tightly
spun lattice with permeability
of <0.5 um. The activated carbon is highly porous, and relies on

van Der Wahl attraction
principles to remove ions from suspension. Treatment with
carbon filtration can remove
chlorine and chloramine, and prevents microbes from passing
through. In larger commercial
operations, ensuring that an appropriate contact time is
available during filtration can mean
that large, or multiple, filters are used.
o Deionization
Deionization is the process of removing minerals using ion-
exchange resins. Cations like
calcium, magnesium, sodium, and iron are exchanged for
hydrogen ions, and anions are
exchanged for hydroxide ions. Deionization is capable of
removing the entire mineral
concentration, but does not remove chlorine to an acceptable
level.
19
• Dilution
Dilution with distilled water can be an easy way of pre-treating

intake water. The
decrease in measured minerals is in direct proportion to the
amount of distilled water added.
The overall hardness of a water could be diluted to an
acceptable range, and, with enough
distilled water, the chlorine levels could become imperceptible.
Dilution comes with some
serious drawbacks when treating water on a large scale. The
cost of purchasing or producing
enough distilled water renders this method impractical.
Additionally, dilution reduces
concentrations, but it does not reduce the total load of minerals
and chlorine in the water. As
will be discussed in the wastewater treatment section, there is
an important distinction
between concentration and load, and simply diluting the intake
water may not be enough to
ensure an optimal brewing environment.
The combination of reverse osmosis and carbon filtration can
give the brewer a “blank slate”
process water profile, and allow for highly controlled mineral
addition, pH balance, and alkalinity
control. While this process is ideal, it is also costly. The intake

water is pre-softened at the treatment
plant, and contains levels of chloramine. It is recommended that
the intake water pre-treatment process
involve a carbon filtration system for the removal of minerals
and chloramine.
20
Activated Carbon Filter Design
The design of an activated carbon filter first requires an
understanding of what needs to be
removed from the water. There are different types of filter

media that excel at removing different types
of minerals and chemical compounds. The water to be treated
for Ellison Brewery & Spirits contains
chloramines. Therefore, a filter designed for chloramine
removal is necessary.
Chloramines are a combination of chlorine and ammonia, and
are used in water treatment as a
disinfectant stabilizer. They are often introduced into the water
at the point of distribution to help keep
the water free of bacteria as it travels through the distribution
network. Standard activated carbon
filters can effectively remove chlorine from intake water, but do
a poor job of removing chloramines.
Long contact times and early breakthrough rates limit the use of
standard granular activated carbon
(GAC) filters in the removal of chloramine. Catalytic or
“surface modified” activated carbon can provide
a solution. In these types of GAC filters, a chemical process
modifies the surface, and the carbon’s
catalytic properties are enhanced. Chemisorption overtakes
adsorption as the mechanism of removal.
Catalytically active sites on the carbon decompose chloramine
molecules into a carbon oxide that
further decomposes the molecules into chloride. Using a carbon

that retains a high pore volume allows
the adsorption of the remaining compounds, and a highly
polished product. (Guar, 2013) The two step
reaction mechanism can be seen below:
C* is the catalytically active site
Where: and
CO* is the carbon oxide intermediate
21
Research was done to gather information for a U.S Water
Systems’ Fusion Superfilter
Commercial Catalytic Carbon Filter 094-CSF, using AquaSorb
CX-MCA Activated Carbon. In testing, a 25-
cm3 bed of GAC was set up in a 2.5 cm diameter column. The

flow rate was maintained at 3.3 bed
volumes per minute. Test water containing 3 mg/L chloramine
was treated, and the results are shown in
Figure 6. After ten thousand bed volumes, the AquaSorb CX-
MCA continued to achieve nearly 70% removal. (U.S. Water
Systems, 2017)
The breweries daily water demand of 29,726 gallons
is equivalent to approximately 20 gallons per minute.
However, as shown in Figure 4, an average of 25% of the
intake water is used specifically for brewing. Cleaning water
and bottle washing water may need to be treated, but this
means that a range of 5 – 20 gallons per minute will need to
be treated at Ellison Brewery & Spirits.
The filter pictured to the right is the 094-CSF-400-
CX, and is capable of running a maximum of 20 gal/min with
4.0 ft3 of bed volume.
The empty bed contact time (EBCT) of the filter can
be calculated by dividing the volume by the flow rate.

V = Carbon Bed Volume (ft3)
Q = Flow Rate (gpm)
C = Conversion Factor (7.48 gallons/ft3)
EBCT = (V x C)/Q
(4 ft3 x 7.48 gal/ft3) / (20 gal/min) = 1.5 minutes EBCT
(4 ft3 x 7.48 gal/ft3) / (5 gal/min) = 6 minutes EBCT
It has a tank size of 16” x 65”, and is designed to
have a catalytic GAC lifetime of 5+ years under normal
operating
conditions. The pumps and electronic controller are operated by
a 12-volt electrical system that costs
less than $2.00 a year in electricity charges.
There are several sizes and models of this tank designed to
handle different max flow rates, and
they range in price from:
$995.00 - $1,795.00

22
Figure 6: Relative dechloramination performance of a standard
coal and coconut based activated
carbon, catalytic coal based carbon, and AquaSorb CX-MCA
activated carbon. (Guar, 2013)
The AquaSorb CX-MCA Activated Carbon used in the U.S.
Water Systems’ catalytic carbon filter
delivers high performance for low cost, and is proposed for use
in the treatment of Ellison Brewery &
Spirits intake water treatment system.
Brewery Wastewater
There are numerous technologies available for the treatment of
wastewater. The two
fundamental treatment techniques involve biological treatment
by either aerobic or anaerobic
processes. Within these two branches, there are many different
options. This proposal will analyze side
streaming pre-treatment, lagoon treatment, aerobic membrane
bioreactor, oxidation ditching, and
direct sewer discharge before providing a detailed design of an
anaerobic treatment system.

Side Streaming
The most common form of brewery wastewater pre-treatment is
side streaming. Side streaming
is the process of separating high strength waste from lower
strength waste at the source of waste
production. Spent grain, trub, and spent yeast are collected
separately. Then they are either hauled off
site for agricultural use, or wasted down the drain. Depending
on the limitations imposed by the
municipality, this could be enough treatment to reduce the
nutrient load to an acceptable level for
discharge into the sewer without incurring a surcharge. Side
streaming can be expanded to include the
collection of lauter tun plate rinsings, hop back rinsings,
whirlpool rinsings, and waste beer. Many of
23
these wastes are too wet to be hauled and used off site so they
must be either hauled to landfills or
discharged to the sewer. However, some side stream products
like spent grain can be used for cattle

feed or land applied fertilizer. (Brewers Association)
The side streaming process may only remove approximately 3%
of the volume of wastewater,
but can account for up to 90% removal of BOD in some cases.
For Ellison Brewery & Spirits, the side
streaming process will be focused on removing high strength
spent grain waste and yeast. The spent
grain will be used as an animal feed supply for farmers, and the
yeast will be discharged to the sewer.
Figure 7 highlights the process by which spent grain is
produced in a brewery.
Figure 7: Spent grain is a high strength by-product of mashing
during the brewing process.
24
A separate drain and pump can be used to move the spent grain
into temporary storage where
local farmers can truck it away. The storage tank is designed to
be low maintenance, it will be necessary

to include a guided wave radar detector for monitoring spent
grain depth in the tank. The tank will
qualify as a permit confined space under MIOSHA regulations,
and an installed detector within the tank
is the safest way to monitor depth. Small brewery operations
like Ellison will likely not be able to sell
their spent grain, but it is possible that farmers would be willing
to absorb the cost of hauling in order to
acquire the product. However, it is important to recognize that
volume, material, and cost are related.
The drier the spent grain, the more valuable it is. Water is not
where the value lies in fertilizer. Spent
grain that has been reduced to between 70 – 80% moisture
travels and stores well. If Ellison can work
out a deal that could net them some money for the spent grain,
it may be worth the investment in a
simple belt press to reduce the water content of their spent grain
before storage.
Lagoon Treatment
Treatment lagoons are a common and practical technique for the
treatment of wastewater.
Lagoons can function aerobically, anaerobically, or as a
facultative system (both aerobic and anaerobic).

In facultative lagoon, wastewater is first deposited in a deeper
section of the pond. The flow velocity is
decreased, solids settle out, and an anaerobic process goes to
work on the waste. As the water moves
from the deeper, anaerobic zone into the shallow zone, aerobic
bacteria continue treatment. Facultative
lagoons offer high quality treatment under the right conditions,
but require long detention times to
treat waste to acceptable discharge levels. These detention times
increase as the strength of the waste
increases, and typical detention times can approach 200 days in
northern climates. Facultative lagoons
are easy to operate, but it can be difficult to control harmful
algae blooms that reduce the effectiveness
of treatment. They also require dredging as settled biomass can
limit the function of the anaerobic zone.
The detention pond provided for storm water management near
the brewery was considered as a
potential location. However, there simply is not enough space to
design a lagoon that satisfies both
wastewater treatment and storm water detention. There is also
the matter of permitting. A DEQ issued
NPDES permit would be necessary to regulate the discharge of
water from the pond to the Red Cedar

River, and taking responsibility for meeting the permit
limitations could become difficult if anything goes
wrong. For these reasons, lagoon treatment will not be
considered a viable option for treating the
brewery wastewater.
Aerobic Treatment
Many different versions of aerobic wastewater treatment exist,
and some form of this
treatment process is in place at nearly every municipal
wastewater treatment facility. In traditional
activated sludge systems, flocs of oxygen-activated bacteria
consume and remove organic waste from
pre-settled wastewater. Since the primary treatment tank is well
mixed, there is usually a need for
settling in a secondary clarifier. Figure 8 is a diagram of how
traditional activated sludge systems
operate. The cost in energy and disposal can become quite high
with these systems since constant
oxygen and sludge removal is required. (Tilley, E., et al.)
25

Figure 8: Activated Sludge systems require constant oxygen and
sludge disposal
Systems like a membrane bioreactor (MBR) can achieve the
same results with a smaller
footprint. In these systems, low-pressure microfiltration or
ultrafiltration membranes are used to
perform solid – liquid separation. This means a smaller
footprint and a higher solids retention time
(SRT). MBRs can achieve a high level of treatment, but still
require high energy and operational costs
due to the continual demand for oxygen and removal of waste
sludge. Membrane fouling can occur, and
high maintenance costs can be associated with MBRs.
Aerobic treatment is not commonly used in breweries except for
where access to municipal
sewer systems is unavailable. Typically, brewers do not want to
be in the business of treating
wastewater to such a high level. In the case of Ellison Brewery
& Spirits, it is only required to meet the
limitations of the Sewer Discharge Permit. It is not economical
to invest in the capital and operational

costs of an aerobic system to treat water that greatly exceeds
regulation. For these reasons, aerobic
treatment will only be considered if other forms of treatment are
not capable of reducing organic levels
to compliance with the Sewer Discharge Permit.
26
Oxidation Ditches
Oxidation ditches include aerobic, anaerobic, and facultative
zones. Oxygen is introduced into
the system by surface aerators like brush rotors, disc aerators,
draft tube aerators, or fine bubble
diffusers. Dissolved oxygen concentrations is greatly increased
in the zones following the aerators, but is
fully consumed in downstream sections. This results in
gradually facultative and anaerobic zones. Oxidation

ditches can treat water very effectively, but come with
many conditions that make it an unreasonable choice for
Ellison Brewery & Spirits. Capital and energy cost are
significant, and there is still the need for sludge wasting
from the system. In northern climates, there is a
problem of aeration rotors freezing. The cold
temperatures and fine mist produced by the rotors can
quickly cause problems that shut the system down, and
require time and money to fix. These systems also come
with a large outdoor footprint, and foul odors can be
released from the anaerobic zones. For these reasons,
oxidation ditches will not be considered as a viable treatment
option for Ellison.
Direct Sewer Discharge
Many breweries with access to city sewer lines choose to
discharge directly and not treat any of
their wastewater. This is only possible for breweries of a certain
size since most publicly owned
treatment works (POTW) cannot handle the huge volumes of

waste produced by large-scale breweries.
For smaller breweries, it is often cheaper to pay to deposit all
their solid and liquid waste directly into
the sewer. Surcharges can be imposed and set by municipalities
based on their capacity and ability to
treat high strength, high volume brewery wastewater. Table 4
identifies some of the surcharge costs in
different areas around the country. (Brewers Association)
27
Table 4: Surcharge examples collected from medium sized
breweries across the country
ELMWSA does not currently impose a surcharge. However,
directly discharging without any side

streaming pre-treatment can be very costly. The populations of
Syracuse, NY and Lansing, MI are similar,
and so the average value of $684 per month will be considered a
reasonable surcharge for this proposal.
Under these assumptions, this is the most realistic and practical
form of dealing with brewery
wastewater for Ellison Brewery & Spirits. It leaves all the
difficulties associated with treating wastewater
to the professionals, and reduces risk and safety hazards for the
brewery owners and operators.
28
Wastewater Treatment Design
Beer is approximately 95% water in content, but an average of
70% (5 bbl wastewater : 1 bbl
beer) of the water used through the entire process ends up as

wastewater. This is due to the need for
cleaning in place and waste from the packaging process. In the
case of Ellison Brewery & Spirits, this
results in approximately 21,233 gal/day of wastewater. (Brewers
Association)
1 Barrel = 31 Gallons
50,000 Barrels of Beer = (50,000 * 31) = 1,550,000 Gallons of
Beer per Year
Multiplying this annual beer production figure by the industry
average wastewater production
ratio of 5 to 1 results in an annual water demand:
1,550,000 Gallons of Beer = (1,550,000 * 5) = 7,750,000
Gallons of Wastewater Annually
Average daily wastewater production:
7,750,000 Gallons / 365 days = 21,233 Gallons of Wastewater
per Day
Process water remaining after side streaming removal of 3%
volume:
(21,233 Gallons / Day * .97) = 20,596 Gallons of Process Water
per Day
In order to provide an accurate wastewater treatment design, it

is necessary to establish some
baseline assumptions about the strength of brewery wastewater,
and understand the mechanisms
behind anaerobic digestion.
Assumptions
The quality of brewery wastewater is uniquely different and
stronger than domestic
wastewater. Brewery wastewater is high in sugar, alcohol,
solids, and has a highly variable pH. Municipal
treatment plants are typically interested in load when it comes
to the water they are treating, and
breweries produce very high loads of chemical oxygen demand
(COD), biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), and total suspended solids (TSS). Table 5 compares the
typical strength of brewery wastewater -
with and without side streaming pre-treatment - with domestic
strength waste and the Meridian
Township Sewer Discharge Permit, and illustrates the strength
of some of the specific waste products of
the brewing process. (Mercer, 2017)

29
Table 5: Comparison of typical waste streams to discharge
permit, and break out of high strength
brewing by-products by type
30
Mechanisms of Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion is usually associated with very high capital
costs (installed cost can be

between $700,000 and $1.2 million), and a certain level of
experience to operate them successfully.
(Brewers Association) However, a healthy anaerobic digester
can provide valuable methane in the form
of biogas, and provide some amount of return on investment.
Anaerobic digesters are finding more and
more of a place in brewery wastewater treatment since the high
strength waste, rich in sugars, provides
great food for bacteria. Anaerobic digesters for breweries are
becoming more common in the United
States for breweries producing more than 100,000 bbl/year. The
50,000 bbl/year produced by Ellison
may not be an ideal scenario for anaerobic digestion, but the
following sections will aim to provide a
detailed design for the practical implementation of an anaerobic
treatment process for Ellison Brewery
& Spirits.
Designing an anaerobic digester first requires an understanding
of the mechanisms and factors
that drive and limit the process. This section will explore the
fundamental processes of anaerobic
digestion, and help identify the size requirements, hydraulic
retention time, biogas production and
energy output, and effluent water quality. The anaerobic

digestion process is typically carried out in four
stages: Hydrolysis; Acidogenesis; Acetogenesis; and
Methanogenesis. Figure 9 summarizes the
anaerobic digestion process. (de Mes, 2017)
• Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis is the first step of anaerobic digestion. During
hydrolysis, insoluble, complex
molecules like carbohydrates and fats are broken down to short
sugars, fatty acids, and amino acids.
• Acidogenesis
In the second step, fermentative bacteria transform sugars and
other monomeric organic
products of hydrolysis into organic acids, alcohols, carbon
dioxide, hydrogen, and ammonia.
Acidogenesis also occurs during this step, and is the process
where simple monomers are converted
into volatile fatty acids (VFAs).
• Acetogenesis
Anaerobic conditions are fully achieved during the third step,
acetogenesis. During this step,
acetogenic bacteria use solved oxygen, carbon, and volatile
fatty acids to produce acetic acid,

carbon dioxide, and hydrogen.
• Methanogenesis
During the fourth step, methanogenic bacteria (methanogens)
transform acetic acid, carbon
dioxide, and hydrogen into a mixture called biogas. Biogas is
made up of 50 – 75 % methane, 25 - 50
% carbon dioxide, and varying quantities of nitrogen and
hydrogen sulfide.
31
Figure 9: Summary flow chart of driving mechanisms within
anaerobic digesters (de Mes, 2017)
Anaerobic digestion is a complex and delicate process that
requires constant monitoring and
control. An environment in the digester that benefits one
species may completely inhibit another, and

the digester can become quickly dysfunctional. With longer
bacterial growth times than in aerobic
systems, anaerobic digesters can become hard to operate if they
are poorly maintained. Temperature
and pH play very important roles in the successful biogas
production and operation of anaerobic
digesters.
• Temperature
Temperature plays a very important role in anaerobic digestion.
The temperature is inversely
proportional to metabolic rate, and plays a key role in biogas
production. The higher the
temperature, the shorter the hydraulic retention time (HRT).
Theoretically, anaerobic digestion can
occur anywhere in the range from 3 – 70 degrees Celsius, but
three types of digestion are
distinguished depending on the temperature: psychrophilic
digestion (10 – 20 ° C); mesophilic
32
digestion (20 – 35 ° C); and thermophilic digestion (50 -60 ° C).
Anaerobic digestion with biomass

temperatures below 15 ° C suffer from gas production so low
that the operation is no longer
economically feasible. While thermophilic digestion produce
more biogas in a shorter time, it also
produces higher volumes of free ammonia. Free ammonia can
inhibit biogas production.
Additionally, operating a system in the thermophilic
temperature range requires substantial energy,
and could cost more than it is worth to operate. The mesophilic
range will be used as a target
temperature range for the design of Ellison’s anaerobic digester.
• pH
The pH of the biomass has a significant impact on the health
and productivity of the two main
bacteria in anaerobic digesters, acidogens and methanogens.
The best pH range for acidogens is 5.5
– 6.5, and for methanogens is 7.8 – 8.2. Methanogenesis is a
rate-limiting step in anaerobic
digestion and biogas production. Therefore, a pH close to
neutral is optimal. Part of the cost of
operating a healthy anaerobic digester is in providing alkalinity
for the acid rich environment inside
the digester. In the case of brewery wastewater, pH can vary

widely, with spikes from 2 to 12, but
generally maintains a pH of 4.5. It will be necessary to include
buffering and conditioning tanks
before the anaerobic digester in the design of Ellison’s
wastewater treatment system. Through the
process of anaerobic digestion, the pH will neutralize, and the
pH of the effluent will be 7. This is an
acceptable pH for discharge into the sewer or any further
treatment steps.
Buffering Tank
After side streaming, the remaining wastewater is called process
water. It has lower COD, BOD, and
TSS, and should be moved to buffering and conditioning tanks
for pH balance and equalization before
anaerobic digestion. Generally, brewery wastewater is acidic,
around pH 4.5, but it can spike anywhere
from pH 2 to 12. It is important to monitor and record the pH of
the wastewater generated from
different processes. After a short time, it will be possible to
identify the times when pH spikes are
expected, and refine a treatment approach. pH adjustment can
be achieved by dilution or chemical

addition. To raise the pH, 50% caustic sodium hydroxide
(NaOH) is the cheapest way. However, NaOH
freezes at approximately 50 F. Using 30% caustic with
potassium hydroxide (KOH) can lower the freezing
point, and make it easier to work with. This will increase the
cost, but reduce the complications of
storing and applying the chemical. To lower the pH, a cheap
acid can be used effectively. 96% sulfuric
acid (H2SO4) is considered the cheapest source. Another
possibility could be harvesting CO2 from the
fermenter blow off and bubbling it through the wastewater
storage tank. Safety is a drawback of
chemical pH control, and improper handling and storage of
strong acids and bases can have lethal
consequences. Figure 10 shows the process of pH adjustment
across mix tanks. Tanks like these can
function as holding tanks before discharge into the sewer
system, and help equalize temperature and
flow. (Brewers Association)
33

Figure 10: Process water after side stream solid removal
receives chemical pH adjustment
Two tank are used for this process, and each tank should be
designed to hold the full volume of a
day’s wastewater production (20,596 gal). The redundancy is to
allow for extra space in the process in
the case that something goes wrong. There will be room if the
digester needs to be down, or if there is a
mistake and an entire fermenter of beer is accidentally wasted.
The additional tank could be bypassed
under regular operating conditions, or used as an additional
equalization tank after digestion. A
retention time of 6 – 12 hours is recommended for buffering,
but additional time may serve to balance
the pH of incoming wastewater, lowering chemical costs.
Anaerobic Digester
Continuous reactors like the Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
(UASB) reactor are common in
the beverage industry. Process water from the conditioning
tanks is pumped into the reactor, and

distributed evenly through the bottom of the reactor. This
process helps to maintain a continually mixed
environment by providing a steady upward velocity within the
tank, reducing settling and clumping. The
wastewater flows upwards through a “blanket” of anaerobic
granular biomass. This is where the
anaerobic digestion process occurs, and bacteria convert
organics to volatile fatty acids, methane, and
CO2. Since most of the organic waste in the water is in solution
in a UASB reactor, there is significant
contact between granules and influent. Organics diffuse across
granule surface layers, and contaminants
are removed as the water passes through the blanket layer. At
the top of the reactor, a three-phase gas-
liquid-solid separator agitates gas bubbles free from formation
sites at the surface of granular biomass.
The gas rises into a collection reservoir, and biomass settles
back into the blanket layer. Treated effluent
passes over weir gates, and distributed to further process steps.
The biogas can go straight to
conditioning and compression, and used for energy production.
One unique use of biogas before
compression is to pass it through the headspace above the
process water in the conditioning tanks. CO2

34
can be removed from the biogas by diffusion at the gas/water
interface. This helps purify the biogas for
use, and lowers the need for caustic chemical addition during
pH balancing. Typically, CO2 and Hydrogen
Sulfide (H2S) are scrubbed from the biogas, and a purer
methane fuel is produced. Figure 11 shows the
basic components of a UASB reactor system. UASB reactors are
unique from classic anaerobic digestion
reactors because they typically do not require sludge recycling,
and rarely need sludge removal. In
classic anaerobic digestion, influent with high solids content is
fed into the digester. Bacteria need a long
time to breakdown the waste, and sludge recycling is required to
provide the necessary solids retention
time (SRT). Additionally, sludge must be constantly removed
and wasted from the digester. This
increases waste fees and O&M costs. The sludge in a UASB
reactor consists almost entirely of granular
biomass and dead bacteria, and may only need to be removed
once every two years. The wasted sludge

from UASB reactors is stable, and can be land applied or wasted
in landfills. (Saleh, 2017)
Figure 11: An Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB)
reactor used for treating brewery wastewater.
Several important parameters govern the design of a UASB
reactor. The majority of influent
organic concentrations should be in soluble form. UASB
reactors achieve a high contact rate between
influent and biomass, and the lower the total suspended solid
count the higher the efficiency. Table 6
highlights some ranges of important parameters for UASB
reactors. (Saleh, 2017)
35
Table 6: Important design parameters for UASB Reactors
The anaerobic digester will need to be designed to treat the full
volume of brewery wastewater

produced in a day. Approximately 20,596 gallons of process
water will need to be treated every day. This
translates to approximately 77,955 liters/day, or 3.25 m3/hr.
Calculations were performed across the range of acceptable
values for a UASB reactor. The
following calculations summarize the assumed values and
resulting size determination of the proposed
reactor:
Assumptions:
HRT = .5 days Upflow Velocity (V) = .5 m/hr Influent Flow
Rate (Q) = 3.25 m3/hr
Calculations:
Tank Volume (Voltank) = (HRT) * (Q)
= ( .5 ) * ( 3.25 m3/hr )
= 39 m3
36

Area of Reactor Bottom (A) = Q / V
= ( 3.25 m3/hr ) / ( .5 m/hr )
= 6.5 m2
Radius of Tank (R) = sqrt ( A / π )
= sqrt [( 6.5 m2 ) / π ]
= 1.44 m (approx. 5 ft)
Height of Tank (H) = Voltank / A
= ( 39 m3 ) / ( 6.5 m2 )
= 6 m (approx. 20 ft)
The calculated size of the tank seems to be reasonable in a
practical and functional sense. A
diameter of almost 10 feet and a height of 20 feet is in line with
expectations based on research of other
real systems. The OLR is the last limiting parameter, and is a
function of organic concentration and tank
volume. The OLR was calculated using values from Table 5 by:
CODAVG = ( 9000 mg COD/L + 1800 mg COD/L ) / 2
= 5400 mg COD/L (converts to 5.4 kg COD/m3)

Daily Load = ( CODAVG ) * ( Daily Flow Rate )
= ( 5.4 kg COD/m3 ) * ( 78 m3/day )
= 421 kg COD/day
OLRCOD = ( Daily Load ) / ( Voltank )
= ( 421 kg COD/day ) / ( 39 m3 )
= 10.8 kg COD/m3 day
37
The average BOD strength was taken from Table 5, and the
OLR was calculated using the same
method. The OLR for the BOD in the system was found to be:
OLRBOD = 6.48 kg BOD/m3 day
The calculated OLRs for COD and BOD are within the
acceptable ranges for the operation of a
UASB reactor.

Biogas Generation
Biogas is a methane rich, flammable gas that results from the
decomposition of organic waste in
an anaerobic digester. While biogas is mostly methane, several
other gases make up the remaining
components. (Biogas and Renewable Natural Gas, 2017)
Major Compounds:
• Methane ( CH4 ) [60 – 70%]
• Carbon Dioxide ( CO2 ) [40 – 30%]
Minor Compounds:
• Hydrogen Sulfide ( H2S )
• Ammonia ( NH3 )
• Hydrogen ( H2 )
Typically, anaerobic treatment of brewery wastewater generates
about 0.4 – 0.5 Nm3 of biogas per
kg of COD removed, and the methane in biogas has a caloric
value around 35 MJ/m3. Figure 12 shows
the annual removal efficiency of a Veolia Biobed UASB reactor
used in the wastewater treatment
process of Unicer Brewery in Oporto, Portugal. This example

treatment system is similar to the proposed
Ellison system. It uses a side streaming treatment process, and
buffering and conditioning tanks before
anaerobic treatment. It can be assumed that the Ellison brewery
will achieve similar removal
efficiencies. (“Biothane”, 2017)
38
Figure 12: Example COD removal efficiency from equivalent
brewery anaerobic digestion process.
The average COD removal efficiency in the case of Unicer
Brewery is approximately 87%. Using the
average value of COD removal (with side streaming) from Table
5 (pg. 8), the daily load of removed COD

can be calculated for Ellison Brewery & Spirits as follows:
Daily Average COD Load of Brewery Wastewater with Side
Streaming:
( 1800 + 9000 mg/L ) / 2 = 5400 mg/L COD
77,955 L * ( 5400 mg/L ) * ( 1 kg / 106 mg ) = 421 kg total
daily COD load
COD Removal at 87% efficiency: ( 421 kg ) * .87 = 366
kg/day
Biogas Generation: ( 366 kg/day ) * .45 Nm3/kg = 165
Nm3/day
Energy Potential: ( 165 Nm3/day ) * (70%) * ( 35 MJ/m3 ) =
4043 MJ/day
39
In 2016, the average monthly natural gas commodity price was
$3.00 per million BTUs (MMBTU).
Conversion factor for methane to MMBTU is:

1 MMBTU = 28.32 m3 CH4
The annual value of the methane in the biogas produced by
Ellison’s UASB reactor can be found by:
(115.5 m3 CH4/day) * (1 MMBTU/28.32 m3 CH4) *
($3/MMBTU) * (365 day/year) = $4466 /year
While this does provide some amount of return on investment, it
may not be enough to offset
the high capital cost of a UASB reactor. However, these values
are in line with research done on other
brewery’s anaerobic digester systems. The biogas produced
from Ellison’s anaerobic digester can be
harvested and compressed. The biogas can be used to power a
natural gas boiler for the heat exchanger
that produces influent biomass temperatures in the mesophilic
digestion range of 20 – 35 ° C. The
addition of a waste gas burner will be added to the system after
the digester for biogas overload
emergencies.
Effluent Water Quality
The ultimate goal of any wastewater treatment system is to

efficiently and economically treat water
to the required standards. The anaerobic digester designed for
Ellison Brewery & Spirits will be able to
achieve an 87% removal efficiency. Table 7 compares the
treated effluent to the untreated influent and
domestic wastewater, and highlights the average outcomes. It
can be seen that through side streaming
and anaerobic digestion, the wastewater ends up close to the
strength of domestic wastewater, and
does not need further biological treatment. The effluent can be
safely discharged to the sewer collection
system.
40
Table 7: Comparison of Treated Effluent to Meridian Township
Sewer Discharge Permit

The COD and TSS concentrations of the treated effluent comply
with the Meridian Township
Sewer Discharge Permit, but the BOD concentration is slightly
high. However, it is possible that the
ELMWSA would be willing to allow for such a minor
exceedance. If the municipality is unwilling to
compromise in their enforcement of the permit limitations, it is
advised that Ellison pay the small
surcharge. The cost of including an aerobic treatment process
after anaerobic digestion does not make
economic sense.

41
Pump Design
A pump will be required to move water from the buffering tank
to the anaerobic digester.
Effluent recycling in classic anaerobic digestion systems is
commonly used to provide longer SRTs and
higher upflow velocities. However, the UASB reactor for
Ellison will not require effluent recycling for any
reason. Hand calculations used to estimate the required pump
head can be found on page______ of the
Appendix. The resulting pump head is equal to 9.93 feet. This
value is estimated, and based on
assumptions. However, it helped focus the search for an
appropriate pump. The product information for
Bell & Gossett’s NRF series single and 3-speed pumps is shown
in Figure 13. (Bell & Gossett, 2017)
Figure 13: Bell & Gossett NRF Series pump performance curves
Based on the required pump head of 9.93 feet and the flow rate
of 14.3 gal/min, the curves for
the NRF-9F/LW Single Speed Pump and the NRF-25 3-Speed

Pump were used in the EPA’s computerized simulation
software, EPANET 2.0. Table 8 shows the output tables of
the links and nodes connecting the EQ tank to the
anaerobic digester. A successful simulation was
conducted using the NRF-25 Pump through a 6 inch
diameter pipe network, and a tolerance of 8 feet
elevation between the tank and reactor. The iterative
method of EPANET 2.0 resulted in a flow rate of 15
gal/min. This is very close to the required flow rate of 14.3
gal/min, and it is expected that the pump will be capable
of operating at a high efficiency. SupplyHouse.com offers
the Bell & Gossett NRF-25 Red Fox Circulator 3-Speed
Pump for $84.95.
42
Table 8: Output tables of the links (top) and nodes (bottom) of
the included in the pumping network

Sewer Collection System
The effluent from the anaerobic digester will be discharged
directly to the sewer. Meridian
Township’s sewer system serves an approximate population of
39,668 (2010). Their collection system is
made up of approximately 195 miles of vitrified clay pipe
(VCP) ranging in sizes from 6 to 48 inches. The
current infrastructure serving the brewery includes an 8-inch
sanitary sewer line carrying water from the
brewery to a 36-inch trunk line, with an average slope of 0.048.
The 36-inch trunk line expands to 48
inches before crossing the Red Cedar River near the proposed
bridge location. At Hagadorn Road,
Meridian’s system connects to East Lansing’s 48-inch line
through MSU. Meridian Township has included
in their Master Plan the additional development anticipation of
what equates to between 8,000 to 9,357
people. With an average home consisting of approximately 2.4
people, this equates to the addition of
approximately 4000 homes. Figure 14 shows the locations and
diameters of Meridian Township’s sewer
collection system in the area of the brewery and pathway.
(“Collection System”, 2017)

43
Figure 14: 8-inch sanitary sewer lines connect to the 36-inch
trunk line for Ellison Brewery & Spirits
The brewery will produce approximately 14.3 gal/min of
wastewater. This will be a significant
source of flow for the current collection system, but should not
overwhelm the system or require
upgrades. Depending on the capacity limitations of the current
collection system, it would be possible
for the brewery to discharge into the sewer during off-peak
hours at night. This would help limit any
capacity problems, and reduce demand on the municipal
treatment plant. If Ellison is required to
discharge over a six-hour overnight time slot, a storage tank
will need to be provided after digestion,

and the flow demand on the sewer system would increase from
14.3 gpm to 57 gpm. Table 9 shows the
carrying capacity, in gallons per minute, of different sized pipes
at varying slopes.
44
Table 9: Sewer system capacities measure in gallons per minute.
(CulverConstruction, 2017)
It can be seen that the flow rate of a low estimate slope pipe is
sufficient for the volume of
wastewater being produced. It was advised that the current
demand on the collection system be
assumed as zero for the purpose of this research. In this, case
there is plenty of capacity to handle the
brewery’s effluent.

45
Conclusion
The expansion of Ellison Brewery & Spirits’ production facility
will generate some complicated
environmental engineering problems, and require creative
solutions. Fortunately, there are many
treatment options available. The most practical design consists
of discharging all waste streams into the
sewer, and paying the municipal surcharge. This option requires
the least amount of capital investment,
and requires no technical skill. Using an anaerobic digester
unlocks the energy potential in the brewery
wastewater, and provides an opportunity for sustainability and
return on investment. The brewery can

expect to recover approximately $4466 per year in energy
savings, and treat the water to acceptable
standards. However, discharge costs will not be zero. The
municipality may choose to charge a fee due
to BOD concentration being out of compliance. There may also
be a surcharge for any other brewing by-
products that go down the drain like spent yeast and trub. Table
10 identifies the expected costs of
various treatment options. Used tanks are available that can
easily serve as buffering tanks. These tanks
can be made of stainless steel, plastic, or fiberglass. The price
provided in the table lists a range of prices
for used tanks that include actuated mixers and controllers.
UASB tanks can be made of coated stainless
steel. These types of reactors do not include any mechanical
pieces, and could potentially be built at a
lower-than-market cost. Typically, anaerobic digesters cost a
million dollars, but a vendor in China
advertises UASB reactors between five and fifty thousand
dollars. It is unclear what the shipping cost
would be, but this may be a cheap way to obtain a UASB reactor
tank.
Table 10: Treatment process cost comparison

Total Cost for Anaerobic Digester Treatment System:
$738,330 - $1,249,365
46
The construction schedule for the intake and wastewater
treatment system will be heavily self-driven. It
will be necessary to delay construction of the new facility until
the upgrade to the storm water
management system is complete. After the water resource work
is complete, Ellison can begin
construction of their new facility and water treatment processes.
Brewing can take place during the
procurement, construction, and start-up phases. Effluent from
the brewing process can be run through
the system, but the initially low level of treatment will mean the
surcharge will need to be paid for those
months. Sludge can typically be acquired from other breweries
using anaerobic digestion. This may

come along with a small cost, but it will be crucial in jump-
starting the digestion process. The
methanogens responsible for biogas production take a long time
to reproduce, and the system will likely
take between 4 and 16 weeks to become operational.
Figure 15: Construction Schedule for intake and wastewater
treatment at Ellison
47
Appendix
Pump Design Hand Calculations

48
49
References
2016 Water Quality Report for the City of East Lansing and
Meridian Township.
www.cityofeastlansing.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/532.
“A Guide to Brewing Water Treatment.” MoreBeer!, 12 May
2013,
www.morebeer.com/articles/treating_homebrew_water.
“Bell & Gossett”. System Lubricated Iron Body Circulators.
Pump Performance Curve retrieved Nov. 2017
from: https://www.nationalpumpsupply.com/content/pdf/bell-
gossett-nrf-pumps-submittal.pdf
“Biogas and Renewable Natural Gas.” Biogas and Renewable

Natural Gas | SoCalGas,
www.socalgas.com/smart-energy/renewable-gas/biogas-and-
renewable-natural-gas.
“Biothane”. Biogas Production from Brewery Wastewater.
http://technomaps.veoliawatertechnologies.com/processes/lib/pd
fs/3292,Article-Jorien-final.pdf
Collection System Improvements. State Revolving Fund Project
Plan. Prepared for Meridian Charter
Township. Retrieved October 2017 from:
d2l.msu.edu/d2l/le/content/482374/viewContent/5148578/View?
ou=482374.
“CulverConstruction and DIY Projects | Forums.”
Thehomesteadingboards.com,
thehomesteadingboards.com/forums/construction-and-diy-
projects-1/math-help-culvert-pipe-capacity-
in-gpm/.
https://www.nationalpumpsupply.com/content/pdf/bell-gossett-
nrf-pumps-submittal.pdf
http://technomaps.veoliawatertechnologies.com/processes/lib/pd
fs/3292,Article-Jorien-final.pdf

50
De Mes, T.Z.D., et al. “Methane Production by Anaerobic
Digestion of Wastewater and Solid Wastes”.
Principle of the Process. Retrieved November 2017 from:
https://www.sswm.info/sites/default/files/reference_attachments
/MES%202003%20Chapter%204.%20
Methane%20production%20by%20anaerobic%20digestion%20of
%20wastewater%20and%20solid%20w
astes.pdf
“Fusion Superfilter Commercial Backwashing Catalytic Carbon
Filter.” US Water Systems,
www.uswatersystems.com/us-water-backwashing-catalytic-
carbon-filter-8-20-gpm.html.
Guar, Vivekanand. “Catalytic Carbon for Chloramine Removal.”
Water Quality Products, 15 Mar. 2013,
www.wqpmag.com/catalytic-carbon-chloramine-removal.
Ingham County Code Index. Charter Township of Meridian.
Chapter 78, Article III, Division 4. Retrieved
October 2017 from: https://ecode360.com/28778911#28778995

Klijnhout, A. F., and P. Van Eerde. “SOME
CHARACTERISTICS OF BREWERY EFFLUENT.” Journal of
the
Institute of Brewing, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9 Apr. 2013,
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-
0416.1986.tb04435.x/pdf.
Mercer, John. Brewery Wastewater Design. 2017 Craft Brewers
Conference. Wastewater Basics and
Lessons Learned PowerPoint. Retrieved October 2017 from:
brewerywastewater.com/.
“National Beer Sales & Production Data.” Brewers Association,
www.brewersassociation.org/statistics/national-beer-sales-
production-data/.
Palmer, John. “Using Salts for Brewing Water Adjustment.”
Using Salts for Brewing Water Adjustment -
How to Brew, howtobrew.com/book/section-3/understanding-
the-mash-ph/using-salts-for-brewing-
water-adjustment.
https://www.sswm.info/sites/default/files/reference_attachments
/MES%202003%20Chapter%204.%20Methane%20production%2

I) What is ArsenicArsenic is a widely distributed element in .docx

I) What is ArsenicArsenic is a widely distributed element in .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to I) What is ArsenicArsenic is a widely distributed element in .docx

Similar to I) What is ArsenicArsenic is a widely distributed element in .docx (20)

More from sleeperharwell

More from sleeperharwell (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

I) What is ArsenicArsenic is a widely distributed element in .docx