what can annammox deammonification do for you - beverly stinson

Deammonification Where are we today and where are we going?May 12th,2011

Sidestream Deammonification

What is it?

How many systems are in operation?

What is the best configuration?

Mainstream Deammonification

Can ANAMMOX function effectively in the colder more dilute mainstream

Discussion

Presentation OverviewDiscussion Topics

Side Stream Treatment From the European Perspective

Centrate / Filtrate Management Options

Physical-Chemical

Ion-Exchange ARP

Struvite Precipitation MAP Process

Ammonia Stripping Steam Hot Air Vacuum Distillation

Nitrification / Denitrification& Bio-augmentation

Nitritation / Denitritation

Deammonification / ANAMMOX

Biological

Nutrient Recovery

Focus

Nitrogen Removal

Focus

Reduction in energy & chemical demands more sustainable Perceived increase in operational complexity

Novel Sustainable Centrate/Filtrate Management Options

Fundamentals of Nitrification - Denitrification

Oxygen demand 4.57 g / g NH+4-N oxidizedCarbon demand 4.77 g COD / g NO-3-N reduced

1 mol Ammonia(NH3/ NH4 +)

1 mol Nitrite(NO2- )

1 mol Nitrate(NO3- )

75% O2

AutotrophicAerobic Environment


mol Nitrogen Gas(N2 )

25% O2

40% Carbon

60% Carbon

HeterotrophicAnoxic Environment

Fundamentals of Deammonification

Oxygen demand 1.9 g / g NH+4-N oxidized

1 mol Ammonia(NH3/ NH4 +)

1 mol Nitrate(NO3- )

75% O2

mol Nitrogen Gas(N2 )

25% O2

40% Carbon

60% Carbon

HeterotrophicAnoxic Environment



NH4+ + 1.32 NO2- + 0.066 HCO3- + 0.13 H+

0.26 NO3- + 1.02N2 + 0.066 CH2O0.5N0.15 + 2.03 H2O

0.44 mol N2+ 0.11 NO3-

0.57 mol NO2-

Partial Nitrification

40% O2

AutotrophicAerobic Environment

ANAMMOX Anaerobic Ammonium Oxidation

Autotrophic Nitrite Reduction(New Planctomycete, Strous et. al. 1999)

Significant reduction in energy demand possible

Elimination of supplemental carbon source e.g. methanol

Overall Benefit of Deammonification Processes

Measured Energy Demand from Hattingen

MBBR DeammonificationSystem

Wett, B, 2007, Development and implementation of a robust deammonification process. Water Science & Technology, 56 (7), 81-88.

Presentation Overview

Deammonification SBR>30% plant TN load

Reduces annual operating cost by $5M / yr (electricity & methanol) Reliably removes 30% TN load after CAMBI / MAD process Overcomes inhibition of CAMBI filtrate Reduces GHG emissions

Deammonification

Low Growth Rate 10 day (5.3 -8.9 Park et. al) day doubling time at 20C SRT (>30 days)

Sensitive to; Nitrite

causes irreversible loss of activity toxicity based on concentration

& exposure time NH4+ : NO2- ratio 1 : 1.32

1 Gallon 80 Gallons 635 Gallons 132,000 Gallons

DO - reversible inhibition Free ammonia (30C preferred pH (neutral range)

Bernhard Wett, 2005

Choosing the deammonification configuration that is right for you

Keys to success:

1. Aerobic Step - Sustain growth of Ammonia Oxidizing Bacteria (AOBs) to nitrify to nitrite BUT Limit the growth of the Nitrite Oxidizing Bacteria (NOBs) to; eliminate competition to ANAMMOX for nitrite prevent nitrate formation which consumes oxygen & requires carbon for

denitrification

2. Anaerobic Step - Sustain growth of ANAMMOX Long SRT Sufficient ammonium, nitrite and inorganic carbon But prevent DO and nitrite toxicity


Manage Competing Demands:Manage SRT -

Aerobic SRT - (in a suspended growth system) long enough to support AOB growth but were possible short enough to washout NOBs (2


Two stage or single stage process?

Attached or suspended or granular?

Factors Influencing decision; Space /Volumetric loading Performance reliability Operability

- Sensitivity to nitrite & oxygen accumulation- Controls amount and sensitivity- Flexibility loading rates, operating modes

Energy demand Start-up duration GHG emissions

Deammonification Process Configurations

Suspended SBR-Type Process -DEMON

> 10 operational facilities (2004) Several under design in North

America Blue Plains & Alexandria

Attached growth process Hattingen, Germany (2000) Himmerfjrden, Sweden (2007) Sjlunda, Malm, Sweden (ANITATM

Mox pilot)

Upflow Granulation Process 2 WWTPs Rotterdam (2005)

& Niederglatt 5 industrial facilities

Upflow Granulation Process

DEMON SBR

MBBR

Einleitung

Apeldoorn (NL)

Thun (CH)

Heidelberg (D)

Suspended Growth Deammonification Experience: DEMON Process

Suspended growth SBR systems: Strass, Austria Glarnerland, Switzerland Thun, Switzerland Plettenberg, Germany Heidelberg, Germany Apeldoorn, Netherlands Zalaegerszeg WWTP, Hungary

Several under construction; Croatia Austria Germany

By 2012 project > 20 Demon facilities on-line

Strass (A)

General Overview of DEMON the Site Visits & Design Criteria

Facility Load (lbs/day)

Tank Vol. (MG)

Design Loading Rate

(Kg N / m3 / d

Performance% TN Removal

% NH3-N Removal Apeldoorn 4,180 0.77 0.66 > 80% TN

> 90% NH3-NThun 880 0.16 0.67 > 90% TN

> 90% NH3-NGlarnerland 550 0.1 0.69 > 90% TN (80 mg/l)

> 90% NH3-N (40mg/l)

Strass 1320 0.13 1.2 > 80% TN> 90% NH3-N

Blue Plains 20,000 5.8 0.58 >80% NH3-NAlexandria 2831 0.8 0.42 > 90% TN

Typical Volumetric Design Criteria = 0.7 Kg / m3 / day Typically > 80% TN Effluent NO3-N < 10% or less if biodegradable COD available

DEMON Sequencing Batch Reactor Energy Demand

Bernhard Wett, March 2009

84% TN Removal at design loading rate of 0.7 kg/ m3 / day

1.3 kW hr / kg N removed

However more sensitive to NO2-N accumulation < 5 mg/l

DeammonificationNitritation /Denitritation

C

o

-

D

i

g

e

s

t

i

o

n

2002

81%

2003

84%

2004

95%

2005

108%

2006

105%

2007

109%

2008

124%

%

N

e

t

E

n

e

r

g

y

P

r

o

d

u

c

t

i

o

n

Strass Plant undertook many energy efficiency activities

With the introduction of DEMON it became a net energy producer

DEMON Sequencing Batch Reactor

Demon Process Control

DEMON depends on 3 main controls (in order of hierarchy);

pH (0.01 range e.g.7.01 7.02) DO (0 0.3 mg/l) Time (20 min / 10 min cycles)

Provides accurate adjustment of all three key aspects

free ammonia inhibition

SRT Control - Cyclone for selecting for DEMON Granules

MLSS Overflow Underflow

Lessons Learned from Discussions with Process Engineers

Robust and reliable process

Confidence & comfort level with the process

No failures - more resilient than anticipated to elevated

NO2N & DO

Simple design aeration, mixing, decant, cyclone, 6-8 m SWD, no odocontrol, not necessary to cover

Controlled primarily with on-line pH & DO probes Monthly cleaning - Drift in calibration not fatal just reduced efficiency

Grab samples for NO2-N, NO3-N

Control Logic has numerous safety nets built in Prevent over aeration or elevated DO

Prevent NO2-N accumulation

Pre-settling to remove heavy material beneficial Cyclon tends to select for the heavy inert material and difficult to remove

Thun, Switzerland

Apeldoorn, Netherlands

Start-up of DEMON SBR

Initially the startup period for DEMON was slow

Strass started up over a 2 year period

Startup of Glamerland, Switzerland occurred within 50 days using STRASS seed and a cyclon

Summary of Suspended Growth Systems

Attached or Suspended? Most existing facilities are suspended but

Suspended (DEMON)

Attached(MBBR)

Granular

Volumetric Loading Rates

Kg N/m3/day 0.7 -1.2

PerformanceTN Removal

% >90% NH3-N>85% TN

Energy Demand kW hrs/ Kg TN removed

1.13

Start-up Days / Years 50 days with seeding

GHG emissions %TN ?Sensitivity / Flexibility

pH & DO Control N2O < 5 mg/l Variable loading TSS Pre-settling

Attached Growth Concept

OLAND Oxygen Limited Autotrophic Nitrification Denitrification

CANON - Completely Autotrophic Nitrogen Removal Over Nitrite

Simultaneous Aerobic and Anaerobic conditions in biofilm layers NH3-N, alkalinity & DO in the

bulk liquid AOBs on the outer aerobic layer ANAMMOX on the inner

anaerobic layer

Courtesy Anox Kaldnes

2-stage MBBR

1-stage MBBR

1-stage MBR

1& 2-stage RBC

Comparative study of various ANAMMOX Process ConfigurationsCema,G., 2010 Thesis KTH Land and water Resource Engineering

Comparative study of various ANAMMOX Process ConfigurationsCema,G., 2010 Thesis KTH Land and water Resource Engineering

2-stage MBBR highly efficient but low loading rate = larger volume MBR inefficient with significant conversion to NO3-N suppression of NOB difficult Single step processes higher rates smaller volume One step RBC efficient, small volume, energy efficient, significant conversion to

nitrate but more mechanical equipment / maintenance One step MBBR efficient, simple, 10% NO3-N, high DO

Single stage MBBR selected for Himmerfjarden WWTP, Stockholm

Start up April 2007 with 32% K1 Kaldnes media fill, 27C 10 months startup (6-7 months to establish ANAMMOX fully) Intermittent aeration 3 mg/l for 50 mins 10 mins anaerobic 73% +/- 11% TN removal Removal rate of 1.2 +/- 0.3 g/m2/day Free Ammonia inhibition of AOBs at >15 mg/l

Hattingen, Germany 2000 40% K1 media fill, Intermittent aeration 0-4 mg/l DO Loading rate of 0.86 g/m2 /day or 0.43 Kg/m3 /day 3-6 month startup thin biofilm layer 70-80 % TN removal Removal rate = 0.62 g/ m2/day or 0.31 Kg/m3/day

Mixing optimization was critical to prevent shear

Less sensitive to high DO (3 vs 0.3) & nitrite (50 mg/l vs 5 mg/l) accumulation than suspended system

Risk of NOB growth & inefficiency

Energy consumption ~ 5.65 kW-hr/Kg-N vs. 1.13 kW-hr/Kg-N in suspended systems

Norbert, J et al., 2006, Treatment of sludge return liquors: Experiences from the operation of full-scale plants, WETEC06, p 5237-5255.

MBBR Attached Growth Deammonification

TN load In

TN load Removed

ANITATM Mox MBBR Deammonification

MBBR concept commercialized as ANITATM Mox

Pilot testing at Soljunda

Continuous DO 1- 2.5 mg/l

Patent on aeration system controls to prevent NO3-N production

ANITATM Mox Performance Soljunda Pilot

75 85% TN removal efficiency

Removal rates of 0.7 to 0.85 Kg TN / m3 / day

Chip design selected as most effective carrier

Start-up seeding tested at bench scale

ANITATM Mox Performance Soljunda Pilot

Start-up of ANITATM Mox

Without seed material ANITATM Mox took over 150 days before ANAMMOX activity was detected 230 days to reach full activity

Seeding with ANNAMOX carrier material accelerated start-up 10% seed material = 130 days for full activity 2% seed material = 160 days

Bio-farm constructed to accelerate start-up with seed carriers

Summary of Attached Growth Systems

Two stage or single stage process? Most tending towards single stage

Suspended (DEMON)

Attached(MBBR)

Granular


Kg N/m3/day 0.7 -1.2 0.430.7 0.83 (pilot)


% >90% NH3-N>85% TN

>85% NH3-N>80% TN

Energy Demand kW hrs/ Kg TN removed

1.13 5.63

Start-up Days / Years 50 days with seeding

130 days with 10% seeding

GHG emissions %TN ? -Sensitivity / Flexibility


DO Control Key Tolerates N2O Variable load High Energy

Upflow Granulation Process: ANAMMOX

Van der Star, W. R. L. et al., 2007, Startup of Reactors for Anoxic Ammonium Oxidation: Experiences from the First Full-scale Anammox Reactor in Rotterdam. Water Research, (41), 4149-4163.

NH4+

NO2-

2 WWTPs - Rotterdam, Niederglatt 5 Industrial Facilities Rotterdam ANAMMOX startup 2002 Initially designed as a two-step process

SHARON - 1800 m3

ANAMMOX 72 m3

>2 yrs before ANAMMOX activity was detected

>3.5yrs to reach full capacity Removal rate 7.1 -9.5 Kg/m3 /day TN removal > 90% Effluent NO2-N < 10 mg/l

Granular biomass beneficial

low sensitivity to inhibition e.g. nitrite > 30 mg/l

Concentrated & compact - 10 times reduction

in volume vs. conventional

Granulation strongly dependent on upflow

velocity

Next generation design: Single Stage

Attached Growth Process

Olburgen, NL, Potato Processing Facility,

3 years operation (startup 2006)

Upgrading of sewage treatment plant by sustainable & cost effective separate treatment of industrial wastewater IWA Krakow 2009, W.R. Abma, W. Driessen, R. Haarhuis, M.C.M van Loosdrecht

Inf NH4

Eff NH4 Eff NO3Eff NO2

Upflow Granulation Process: ANAMMOX

GHG emissions

Studies have been performed to assess the GHG emissions from deammonification processes

Nitric oxide(NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nitrous oxide (N2O) are known to be emitted from deammonification process in trace amounts

Known to be produced by AOBs, NOBs and denitrifying organisms BUT ANAMMOX is not known to generate GHG

Elevated NO2-N concentration can lead to GHG emissions (Fux & Siegrist, 2004) as it may serve as an electron donor or may result in free nitrous acid for N2O release (Zhou et al 2008)

Suggested that a 2-stage process is more likely to result in GHG emissions than a 1 stage process due to elevated NO2, DO and reduced pH.

Testing at Strass single stage suspended growth DEMON process and at the Rotterdam 2-stage SHARON - Granular ANAMMOX system

3mg/l NO2-N and DO < 0.3 mgl in DEMON vs. 40 mg/l NO2-N DO of 2.5 mg/l in SHARON

GHG emissions

Strass 1-stage suspended growth DEMON process (Weissenbacher et al. 2010)

3mg/l NO2-N and DO < 0.3 mg/l

Net N2O production was 1.5% & NOx < 0.1% when NO2-N 10 mg/l, stressing the importance of managing nitrite accumulation

Rotterdam 2-stage SHARON / Granular ANAMMOX process (Kampschreur et. al. (2008)

40 mg/l NO2-N in SHARON &DO of 2.5 mg/l

SHARON - 1.7% N2O & 0.2% NO

ANAMMOX - 0.36% N2O & 0.003% NO

Attached(MBBR)

Suspended (DEMON)

Granular


Kg N/m3/day

0.430.7 0.83 (pilot)

0.7 -1.2 7.1 - 9.5


% >85% NH3-N>80% TN

>90% NH3-N>85% TN

>90% TN

EnergyDemand

kW hrs/ Kg TN

removed

5.63 1.13 ??

Start-up Days / Years

130 days with 10% seeding

50 days with seeding

>3 yrs w/oseeding

TBD w/seedingGHG emissions

%TN - 1.6% 2.26%

Sensitivity / Flexibility

DO Control Key Tolerates N2O Variable load High Energy


High loads Tolerate N2O Energy?

Summary of Centrate / Filtrate Deammonification Processes

New Frontiers for Deammonification

Can we apply Deammonification to mainstream TN removal?

International Collaboration

Cyclones make the concept more feasible

Glarnerland WWTP, Austria started to look at this 2010

Initial results inconclusive but promising

Blue Plains bench scale SBRs started January 2011

HRSD planning some pilots 2011

Strass WWTP, Austria Starting 2011

American Water performing some interesting MBR work

Ghent University, Belgium, bench scale research ongoing which suggests it is feasible

Glarnarland WWTP, Austria

Blue Plains AWTP

The Benefits

Potential Operating Cost SavingsWastewater

PlantAnnual

Energy Savings*Annual External Carbon Savings

Blue Plains (DC Water) (330 mgd)

$4.0 - $6.0 million $7.0 million

8 WWTPs (HRSD) (125 mgd) $2.0 - $4.0 million $2.0 million

* Assumes 50% - 75% Anammox nitrogen removal.

Typical A/B Plant Configuration

Denitrification Polishing (if required) Denit Filters Activated Sludge (e.g. post anoxic & reaeration) etc.

A Stage B Stage MLE 4 Stage Bardenpho

Anaerobic Treatment?

A Stage Anaerobic treatment

D Stage Deammonification

Autotrophic Sulphide-driven denitrification

Courtesy Dr. Charles Bott, HRSD

Questions

Is Deammonification feasible in Mainstream WWT?

Separate SRT of ANAMMOX from AOB, NOB, and heterotrophs (retain AOB only) Long SRT for ANAMMOX Short SRT for AOBs while washing out NOBs

Remove COD and TSS to limit heterotrophic growth in deammonification stage and prevent accumulation of inert TSS with cyclone

Continuous Low DO or cyclical ON/OFF aeration? Low DO select for AOBs over NOBs? (Ks for AOB and NOBs?) May select for AOAs (Ammonium Oxidizing Archea)?

Bioaugment ANAMMOX organisms from sidestream DEMON?

May need to denitrify remaining NOx to meet TN objective

Primary objective: Eliminate competition for NO2 Support ANAMMOX growth Limit NOB growth

Nitrification / Denitrification Polishing (if required) Activated Sludge & Denit Filters Activated Sludge

A/D Alternative

A Stage D Stage Deammonification

Activated Sludge for Ammonium

polishing

Deammonification Concept for Blue Plains

what can annammox deammonification do for you - beverly stinson

Documents