zacariah l. hildenbrand, ph.d. inform environmental, llc
TRANSCRIPT
Zacariah L. Hildenbrand, Ph.D.Inform Environmental, LLC
The Collaborative Laboratories for Environmental Analysis and Remediation at
UT‐Arlington
Killing Two Birds with One Stone• Reduce the reliance on fresh water
– Highly localized withdrawals of groundwater in arid regions • Reduce the occurrence of induced seismicity
– Underground injections wells– Such a prevalent issue that it has triggered the state government to finance the TEXNET program
• Unfortunately produced water recycling has been hindered by two key factors:– Economics– Effectiveness under field conditions
Produced water treatment for reuse
Raw Waste
Ozonation Particulate Filtration
Primary Carbon
Secondary Carbon
UV
Biogeochemistry
Hildenbrand et al., 2018 (in review)
Bulk Measurements
Raw O 3 PF1o
Carbon
2o Carb
on UV
0
100
200
300Tu
rbid
ity (N
TU)
p=0.0001***
p=0.0001***-76.1%-80.9%
Raw O 3 PF1o
Carbon
2o Carb
on UV
0
500
1000
1500
TOC
(mg/
L)
p=0.002**-81.5%
Raw O 3 PF1o
Carbon
2o Carb
on UV
0200400600800
1000
50000
100000
150000
TSS
(mg/
L)
p=0.012*
p=0.089-99.6%-99.2%
Raw O 3 PF1o
Carbon
2o Carb
on UV
0
100
200
300
400
TN (m
g/L)
p=0.008**-76.0%
Hildenbrand et al., 2018 (in review)
Bulk Measurements
Raw O 3 PF1o
Carbon
2o Carb
on UV
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Bica
rbon
ate
(mg/
L)
p=0.029*-65.4%
Raw O 3 PF1o
Carbon
2o Carb
on UV
4
6
8
10
pH
p=0.034*-12.8%
Hildenbrand et al., 2018 (in review)
Bulk Measurements
Raw O 3 PF1o
Carbon
2o Carb
on UV
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
TDS
(mg/
L) p=0.959
Raw O 3 PF1o
Carbon
2o Carb
on UV
0
100
200
300
400
500
Sulfa
te (m
g/L)
p=0.406
Raw O 3 PF1o
Carbon
2o Carb
on UV
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
Chlo
ride
(mg/
L)
p=0.976
Raw O 3 PF1o
Carbon
2o Carb
on UV
0
10
20
30
40
Fluo
ride
(mg/
L) p=0.703
p=0.385-55.6%
Hildenbrand et al., 2018 (in review)
Organic Contaminants
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 min0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5 mV (x1,000)
(250x zoom scale)
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 min0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
mV (x10)
10
9 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
2 3
4
7
8
9
10
23
22
21
20
11 19
18 17
15
13
12
12 14
16
20
21 22
23
27 28 29
25
26 24
24
30
31 32 33 34
25
26
27 28 29
30
18 17 13 14
31
PW 3
PW 7
Hildenbrand et al., 2018 (in review)
Organic Contaminants
Hildenbrand et al., 2018 (in review)
# Compound # Compound # Compound # Compound # Compound # Compound
1 Hydrogen sulfide
7 Methylene chloride
13 Ethylene chloride
19 Methyl-cyclohexane
25 m- + p-Xylene
2 Methanol 8 Methyl acetate 14 3-Hexanol 20 Toluene 26 Nonane + o-Xylene
3 Methanethiol 9 n-Propanol 15 Cyclo-hexane 21 C8 aliphatic + C8 cyclic HC
27 Alkyl aromatics
31 Tridecane
4 Ethanol 10 Hexane 16 Benzene 22 Octane 28 Decane 32 Tetradecane
5 iso-Pentane 11 2-butanol 17 3-methyl hexane
23 C9 aliphatic HC
29 Undecane 33 Pentadecane
6 Pentane 12 Ethyl acetate 18 Heptane 24 Cyclohexanoe + Ethyl Benzene
30 Dodecane 34 Hexadecane
Organic Contaminants
Hildenbrand et al., 2018 (in review)
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 min
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
uV (x10,000)
PW 11-UV
PW 11-2o Carbon
PW 11-1o Carbon
PW 11-PF
PW 11-O3
PW 11-Raw
TEX
Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
Ethyl Acetate
H2S, MeOH MeSH, EtOH
Sub‐ppm concentrations
Inorganic Constituents
Hildenbrand et al., 2018 (in review)
RawTre
ated
0
20
40
60
80
100Iro
n (m
g/L) p=0.908
RawTre
ated
0
5
10
15
20
Bariu
m (m
g/L)
p=0.710
RawTre
ated
0
1000
2000
3000
Calc
ium
(mg/
L)
p=0.497
RawTre
ated
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Mag
nesi
um (m
g/L)
p=0.123
RawTre
ated
0
100
200
300
Stro
ntiu
m (m
g/L)
p=0.923
RawTre
ated
0
20
40
60
80
100
Boro
n (m
g/L)
p=0.872
RawTre
ated
0
20
40
60
80
100
Tita
nium
(mg/
L)
Not Detected
RawTre
ated
0
20
40
60
80
100
Zirc
oniu
m (m
g/L)
Not Detected
Scale
Crosslinkereffeciency
Crosslinkerefficiency
Biological Contaminants
PW8 Raw
E. aurantiacum (98.1%) 100 25 mLA. Baumannii (77.4%) 25,000 25 mLA. punctata (82.6%) 100 25 mL
S. epidermidis (96.6%) 100 25 mLPlanomicrobium sp. (99.9%) 100 25 mLPseudomonas sp. (99.9%) 1 25 mL
Paracoccus sp. (99.9%) 100 25 mL
PW8 03
Pseudomonas sp. (99.9%) 100 25 mLParacoccus sp. (99.9%) 100 25 mLRhizobium sp. (76.8%) 100 25 mL
PW8 PF Paracoccus sp. (93.6%) 100 25 mL
PW8 PCC. perfringens (93.6%) 100 25 mL
R. ornithinolytica (82.9%) 100 25 mLParacoccus sp. (89.7%) 100 25 mL
PW8 SC S. putrefaciens (75%) 12,500 25 mL
PW8 UVParacoccus sp. (81.9%) 1,000 25 mL
S. epidermidis (99%) 1,000 25 mL
PW 9 RawS. putrefaciens (99.9%) 4 25 mLB. cereus group (96.9%) 100 25 mLParacoccus sp. (85.8%) 4 25 mL
PW9 03S. hominis (88.1%) 50 25 mLS. maltophilia (96%) 1,750 25 mL
PW9 PF B. cereus group (87.4%) 100 25 mL
PW9 PC
S. putrefaciens (84.4%) - 25 mLS. algae (96.8%) - 25 mL
K. pneumoniae (81.2%) 7 25 mLP. chlororaphis (76.1%) 25,000 25 mL
PW9 SCParacoccus sp. (75%) 100 25 mLK. pneumoniae (87%) 7 25 mL
PW9 UV B. stabilis (87%) 5 25 mL
Hildenbrand et al., 2018 (in review)
Sample Microorganism ID CFUs Sample volume Sample Microorganism ID CFUs Sample volume
Future Directions‐Targeted Treatment
Raw
Treated
Santos et al., 2018 (in preparation)
Future Directions‐ Potable Water
Special Thanks to:
• Challenger Water Solutions– Clint Layman– Joel Warner
• CLEAR @ UT‐Arlington– Dr. Kevin Schug– Dr. Ines Santos– Dr. Doug Carlton– Manny Varona‐Torres– Tiffany Liden
Questions?
Zacariah [email protected]‐694‐7132