Caliskaner, Onder

Presented at WEFTEC 2023.

Titles from this speaker

Description: Domestic Advanced Primary Wastewater Treatment Utilizing Pile Coth Media Filtration...

Domestic Advanced Primary Wastewater Treatment Utilizing Pile Coth Media Filtration for Operational Savings and Increased Biogas Production and Wet Weather Treatment

Abstract

The use of pile cloth media filtration (PCMF) is becoming a new solution to allow treatment facilities to achieve advanced treatment without chemical addition in a dramatically reduced footprint in comparison to conventional primary sedimentation. PCMF brings a high-quality effluent quality which allows the technology to be used, also for the wet weather treatment in dual treatment applications. The study and full-scale installation data has confirmed that PCMF can achieve consistently >80% TSS and >50% BOD/COD removal in primary applications. The has been much testing in documenting the benefits of advanced primary treatment with PCMF. This includes the reduction in aeration requirement for the biological treatment processes and/or more biological treatment capacity without additional basins/tankage. Other benefits such as more primary solids for anaerobic digestion and increased biogas and energy production within the wastewater facility. In wet weather applications, the technology is producing effluent quality that achieves EPA secondary effluent standards or better.

This paper will cover advanced primary treatment utilizing pile cloth media filtration versus conventional treatment. The concept and principles of carbon diversion and how the use of pile cloth media filtration allows WRRF's become more energy efficient and production of biogas. Also, the paper covers the ability to handle wet weather peak flow conditions by providing dual treatment capabilities.

SpeakerDyson, John

Presentation time

14:00:00

14:30:00

Session time

13:30:00

15:00:00

SessionPrimary Treatment Technologies: Should We Settle for Conventional Primary Sedimentation?

Session locationRoom S501a - Level 5

TopicEnergy Production, Conservation, and Management, Facility Operations and Maintenance, Intermediate Level, Municipal Wastewater Treatment Design

Author(s)

Dyson, John

Author(s)J. Dyson 1; T. Reid 2 ; O. Caliskaner 3; J. Dyson 1;

Author affiliation(s)Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. 1; Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. 2 ; Caliskaner Water Technologies 3; Aqua-Aerobic Systems 1;

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2023

DOI10.2175/193864718825159003

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count22

Description: Evaluation of the Impacts of Three Advanced Primary Treatment Technologies on...

Evaluation of the Impacts of Three Advanced Primary Treatment Technologies on Performance of Water Resource Recovery Facilities

Abstract

INTRODUCTION
Several filtration and micro-screen technologies have been developed to provide advanced primary treatment (APT) to replace conventional primary treatment (CPT). Primary filtration [e.g., cloth disc primary filter (CDPF)] provides improved removal of particulate material compared to CPT with a significantly smaller treatment footprint and modified effluent particle size distribution. Primary biofiltration [e.g., compressible medium biofilter (CMBF)] provides additional removal of soluble material compared to CPT. When a screening technology is used with pore size between 100 and 300 microns to replace CPT, the process application is known as micro-screening (MS). Performance data from full-, demonstration-, and pilot-scale CDPF, CMBF, and MS projects have demonstrated the feasibility of these technologies for APT. APT effluent has significantly lower concentrations of total suspended solids (TSS) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) compared to CPT, which results in reduced secondary treatment aeration energy requirements and increased secondary treatment capacity. APT diverts carbon from the energy-intensive secondary process towards energy-recovering anaerobic digestion.
METHODOLOGY
The results presented in this paper are from CDPF, CMBF, and MS projects since 2012, including an on-going comprehensive APT demonstration project. The evaluation of APT technologies is focused on hydraulic performance in addition to treatment performance. The hydraulic performance can be evaluated by monitoring solids loading rate (SLR), hydraulic loading rate (HLR), and the ratio of reject streams (backwash water, settled sludge, and scum) to applied wastewater. The backwash reject water (BRW) ratio, defined as the amount of backwash flow relative to the amount of wastewater filtered, is an important consideration to evaluate and optimize the performance of APT technologies. For APT systems, high HLR, low BRW ratio, and high SLR correlate to lower capital and operational costs. Treatment and hydraulic performances of APT systems are evaluated with respect to subsequent overall energy and capacity impacts for water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs).
RESULTS
CDPF. In a CPDF system (Aqua-Aerobics Systems, Inc.), cloth media (via small pore sizes of 5 Âµm) provides a physical barrier for filtration while floatable and settable materials are removed separately. As shown on Figure 1, the hydraulic and treatment performance across CDPF units installed at Linda WRRF (full-scale), Manteca WRRF, and Lancaster WRRF was consistent, achieving removals of 80â€“85% for TSS and 45â€“60% for organics (Table 1). The demonstration-scale filters in Lancaster and Manteca were found to have BRW ratio between 12â€“15%, while the Linda full-scale filter had an average BRW ratio of 10%. Figure 2 summarizes TSS removal performance for the full-scale CDPF based on 3-year operation; effluent TSS concentration remained relatively constant over a wide range of influent TSS concentrations (influent and effluent TSS averaged 300 and 55 mg/L, respectively).
CMBF. In a CMBF system (WesTech Engineering, Inc.), liquid passes through a bed of compressible filter media and creates a pore size gradient (smaller particles are captured by increasingly smaller pores). Biofiltration is promoted by allowing controlled biofilm growth within the filter media. A two-year demonstration-scale project was conducted at Linda WRRF to evaluate primary biofiltration using CMBF (Figure 3). Consistent removal of soluble material was observed. Test results for the removal of soluble BOD (sBOD), seen on Figure 4, and soluble chemical oxygen demand (sCOD) were 22 and 25%, respectively. Based on the analysis of forty samples, TSS, BOD, and COD removals were 70, 52, and 50%, respectively.
Micro-Screen. A MS (Huber, Inc.) system utilizes a horizontally installed screen basket that wastewater flows through from inside to outside. A filter carpet develops on the filter mesh that helps to retain particles that are much smaller than the nominal aperture size of the mesh. A fixed spray bar cleans the basket surface and fine screenings (primary sludge). In pilot testing of a MS (Huber Drum Screen Liquid) at Sand Island WRRF, reductions of 60â€“70% TSS and 25â€“35% BOD were achieved. These APT systems have demonstrated consistent high effluent quality across a wide range of influent raw wastewater conditions at a lower treatment footprint than CPT (Table 2). APT technologies can treat a larger volume of raw wastewater per square foot of land. For example, at Linda WRRF, the primary clarifier requires 220 m2 (2,400 ft2) to treat 11,000 m3/day (2.5 MGD), while the CDPF or MS (if scaled up to the primary clarifier) would require less than 50 m2 (500 ft2) to treat 11,000 m3/day (2.5 MGD). This significant reduction in primary treatment footprint translates to significant cost savings, particularly for WRRFs with limited land availability. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS APT technologies can significantly improve the efficiency of WRRFs with respect to energy and treatment performance, capacity, and footprint. A summary of APT and CPT technologies is provided in Table 2. The following conclusions have been observed from the demonstration projects reviewed in this paper: - BOD and COD removal for APT technologies is 25â€“40% higher compared to CPT. - The overall WRRF energy savings possible with APT are significant and can be as high as 40â€“50%, depending on system specifics. Energy cost savings result from: (1) a reduction in the primary effluent organic load which, in turn, results in a 20â€“40% decrease in the aeration energy requirement in secondary treatment and (2) the high energy content of the captured VSS in filter BRW and the increased volume of primary sludge increases gas energy production in the anaerobic digester. - The increase in biogas energy production with APT has been estimated to be between 15 and 35%, depending on specific WRRF conditions. - APT enhances the particle size characteristics of primary effluent which allows secondary treatment processes to operate more efficiently. As shown on Figure 5, the effluent particle size distribution obtained with APT is superior compared to CPT effluent; for example, average removal for a 10-micron particle was 76, 64, and 56% for the CDPF, CMBF, and primary clarifier, respectively. - Effluent TSS concentration from APT systems remained relatively constant (Figure 2), thus providing an improved/constant mass loading to the secondary treatment process. - APT can reduce the footprint of CPT up to 80%.
ONGOING PROJECT
A technology research, demonstration, and development project is underway to further demonstrate the increased performance and economic benefits of advanced wastewater treatment technologies (Figure 6) compared to conventional treatment. The three APT technologies shown in Table 2 [CDPF (full-scale), MS (full-scale), CMBF (demonstration-scale)] are deployed at Linda WRRF. Main objectives include: (1) evaluate the performance of APT compared against CPT, (2) improve the economic feasibility and capacity of APT by reducing the BRW ratio and increasing the hydraulic performances, and (3) evaluate the performance and benefits of combined APT and advanced secondary treatment systems [supply APT effluent to a full-scale membrane aerated bioreactor and demonstration-scale aerobic granular sludge and Micro-Vi systems].

The performance of three advanced primary treatment (APT) technologies including Cloth Disk Primary Filter (CDPF), Compressible Medium Biofilter (CMBF) and Micro-Screen (MS) was evaluated. Compared to primary clarifier, APT technologies demonstrated significant benefits for energy and capital cost savings. To maximize the benefits of APT, a 3-year comprehensive research and demonstration project is underway to quantify performance of APT combined with advanced secondary treatment technologies.

SpeakerCaliskaner, Onder

Presentation time

16:30:00

16:55:00

Session time

15:30:00

17:00:00

TopicIntermediate Level, Municipal Wastewater Treatment Design

Author(s)

Caliskaner, Onder

Author(s)Onder Caliskaner1; Yihan Zhang1; Yuanbin Wu1; George Tchobanoglous2; Brian Davis3

Author affiliation(s)Caliskaner Water Technologies, Woodland, CA1; University of California Davis, Davis, CA2; Linda County Water District, Olivehurst, CA3

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2022

DOI10.2175/193864718825158732

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count18

Description: Impacts of Advanced Primary Treatment on Advanced Secondary Treatment and MLE...

Impacts of Advanced Primary Treatment on Advanced Secondary Treatment and MLE Processes

Abstract

The performances of four advanced primary treatment (APT) technologies including Cloth Disk Primary Filter (CDPF), Compressible Medium Biofilter (CMBF), Micro-Screen (MS) and Proteus Filter were evaluated. Compared to primary clarifier which achieved 58% removal for total suspended solids (TSS) and 32% removal for chemical oxygen demand (COD), both CDPF and CMBF demonstrated a significantly higher removal performance. The CDPF achieved 76% removal for total suspended solids (TSS) and 49% removal for COD, while the CMBF achieved 70% removal for TSS and 52% removal for BOD. The performance of the MS was comparable to primary clarifier at a footprint of only 20-30% of primary clarifier. The CDPF and Proteus filter also showed similar significant footprint reduction compared to primary clarifier. To demonstrate the full benefits of advanced wastewater treatment, the impacts of APT on advanced secondary treatment (AST) and conventional MLE process is evaluated as part of the ongoing technology research and demonstration project at Linda Water Resource Recovery Facility

The performances of four advanced primary treatment (APT) technologies including Cloth Disk Primary Filter, Compressible Medium Biofilter, Micro-screen and Proteus Filter were evaluated in this long-term and comprehensive technology development and demonstration project. Compared to primary clarifier, APT technologies demonstrated higher treatment performances also resulting in significant energy savings, secondary treatment capacity increase, and footprint reduction in primary treatment.

SpeakerCaliskaner, Onder

Presentation time

14:30:00

15:00:00

Session time

13:30:00

15:00:00

SessionPrimary Treatment Technologies: Should We Settle for Conventional Primary Sedimentation?

Session locationRoom S501a - Level 5

TopicEnergy Production, Conservation, and Management, Facility Operations and Maintenance, Intermediate Level, Municipal Wastewater Treatment Design

Author(s)

Caliskaner, Onder

Author(s)O. Caliskaner 1; Y. Zhang 2 ; O. Caliskaner 1; Y. Wu 3; E. Martinez 4; G. Tchobanoglous 5; B. Davis 6;

Author affiliation(s)Caliskaner Water Technologies, Inc. 1; Caliskaner Water Technologies, Inc. 2 ; Caliskaner Water Technologies, Inc. 1; Caliskaner Water Technologies, Inc. 3; Caliskaner Water Technologies, Inc. 4; University of California at Davis 5; Linda County Water District 6;

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2023

DOI10.2175/193864718825159004

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count13

Description: Impacts of Primary Effluent Filtration and Primary Filtration Technologies on...

Impacts of Primary Effluent Filtration and Primary Filtration Technologies on Performance of Water Resource Recovery Facilities Compared to Conventional Primary Treatment

Abstract

Several filter technologies have been developed over the past 20 years that can be used to
- enhance the performance of or
- replace conventional primary treatment facilities. To enhance primary treatment performance, primary sedimentation (PS) tank effluent can be filtered to further reduce the constituent concentrations discharged to the secondary treatment facilities. This form of primary enhancement is known as primary effluent filtration (PEF). When a filter technology is used to replace primary sedimentation, the process application is known as primary filtration (PF). The principal focus of this paper is to compare the performance of PEF and PF technologies against conventional primary treatment. The comparison will focus on treatment and hydraulic performance impacts on Water Resource Recovery Facilities (WRRF). Carbon management and energy impacts are also addressed. Performance data from full-, demonstration- and pilot-scale projects are included, based on a review and analysis of several projects conducted between 2008 and 2020.

The following conference paper was presented at WEFTEC 2021, October 16-20, 2021. To read the full abstract, see "Abstract" tab below.

SpeakerCaliskaner, Onder

Presentation time

11:20:00

11:40:00

Session time

11:00:00

12:00:00

SessionAdvancements in Primary Treatment: Going Beyond the Conventional

Session number204

TopicAdvanced Level, Facility Operations and Maintenance, Municipal Wastewater Treatment Design

Author(s)

Onder Caliskaner

Author(s)O. Caliskaner1; G. Tchobanoglous2; L. Imani1; B. Davis3;

Author affiliation(s)Caliskaner Water Technologies, Inc., CA1University of California at Davis, CA2Linda County Water District, CA3

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2021

DOI10.2175/193864718825158028

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count22

Description: Performance Evaluation of Parallel Operation of Conventional Primary Treatment...

Performance Evaluation of Parallel Operation of Conventional Primary Treatment versus Primary Filtration and Biofiltration Systems

Abstract

In this project, the performance of two advanced primary treatment (APT) technologies, a pile cloth disk primary filter (CDPF) and a compressible media filter (CMF), were compared to conventional primary treatment. Conventional primary treatment (i.e., primary clarifier) typically removes 55 to 60% of total suspended solids (TSS) and 30 to 40% of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) from raw wastewater (Metcalf and Eddy, 2014). Primary filtration (PF) and biofiltration are emerging APT technologies that can remove high solids and organics load from raw wastewater after screening. PF typically achieves removal efficiencies of 75 to 85% for total suspended solids and 50 to 65% for biochemical oxygen demand (Caliskaner et al., 2018). Biofiltration also offers the potential for removing soluble organic fractions due to biological activity, which occurs because of increased depth of the filter medium and longer contact times. Additionally, the impact of APT on downstream operations such as secondary treatment and anaerobic digestion was evaluated.

SpeakerCaliskaner, Onder

Presentation time

16:00:00

16:30:00

Session time

15:30:00

16:30:00

SessionCellulose Recovery From Wastewater

Session number7F

TopicBiosolids and Residuals, Energy Production, Conservation, and Management, Municipal Wastewater Treatment Design, Research and Innovation

Author(s)

O. CaliskanerG. TchobanoglousL.N. ImaniJ. LundB. DavisJ. Rios FariasT. Reid

Author(s)O. Caliskaner1; G. Tchobanoglous2; L.N. Imani1; J. Lund1; B. Davis3; J. Rios Farias3; T. Reid4;

Author affiliation(s)Kennedy/Jenks Consultants1; University of California at Davis, CA2; Linda County Water District3; Aqua-Aerobics Systems, Inc. 4; WesTech Engineering, Inc. 5

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2020

DOI10.2175/193864718825157434

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count16