McNamara, Patrick

Pat is a Wastewater Process Engineer with Black Veatch and an associate professor at Marquette University. He has been researching biosolids pyrolysis for 10 years. His research group has conducted studies on the energy costs of biosolids pyrolysis, removal of pollutants during pyrolysis, and the use of biochar as a soil amendment and adsorbent. He currently has a patent pending related to using biosolids-derived biochar as a catalyst for pyrolysis. In addition he has conducted research on dewaterability issues at a number of biosolids facilities.

Titles from this speaker

Description: Should Pyrolysis Be Employed To Remove PFAS and Microconstituents from Biosolids?...

Should Pyrolysis Be Employed To Remove PFAS and Microconstituents from Biosolids? Experimental Results and Practical Considerations

Abstract

Introduction Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) have been an increasing focus of the public, legislative bodies, and the regulatory community, and recent EPA activities highlight this focus with respect to biosolids(1). In October 2021 the EPA released its PFAS Strategic Roadmap, outlining EPA actions with respect to PFAS for 2021-2024: these activities include a risk assessment of PFAS in biosolids to be completed by 2024(1). EPA also announced its intent to pursue the classification of PFAS under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). While it is no means certain that federal PFAS regulations for biosolids are forthcoming, some utilities have faced - or might face - increasing pressure to consider either i) reducing PFAS and microconstituent loads in biosolids, or ii) processes that provide an alternative product for land application. Conventional treatment processes such as anaerobic digestion or composting do not mitigate PFAS concentrations(2). Pyrolysis is an alternative solids process that is gaining interest as a possible approach to mitigate PFAS and microconstituents. Current literature is contradictory on the impact of pyrolysis on PFAS, with removal(3) and no removal(4) being reported. Thus, new experiments were conducted to determine the fate of PFAS during pyrolysis of biosolids, and results will be presented at the conference. In addition to knowing the impacts of pyrolysis on the fate of PFAS, practical considerations of pyrolysis such as generation of difficult-to-handle byproducts and side streams, dryer operations and costs, and product management need to be evaluated holistically. To approach this topic of PFAS removal via pyrolysis holistically, this presentation has three main objectives: 1. Define pyrolysis and the pyrolysis products generated from municipal biosolids 2. Determine the impact of pyrolysis on microconstituents, including PFAS, using novel, unpublished pyrolysis batch studies that investigate the fate of PFAS in biochar, pyrolysis-liquid, and pyrolysis-gas 3. Understand practical considerations for implementation of pyrolysis Objective 1: Define pyrolysis and pyrolysis products Pyrolysis is a thermal decomposition process that occurs at high temperatures (normally over 450ºC) under limited or no oxygen. Pyrolysis of biosolids generates solid, liquid, and gaseous products. The solid product, called biochar, is a carbon-rich product similar to charcoal that can be used as a soil amendment because it retains moisture(5). It can also adsorb nutrients from thickening filtrate and be used to improve grass growth(6). The non-condensable gases produced, called py-gas, contain energy rich constituents such as methane and hydrogen(7). The pyrolysis liquid can be composed of two phases: light non aqueous phase called bio-oil and an aqueous phase known as aqueous pyrolysis liquid (APL). The bio-oil, which can be used as a renewable fuel upon upgrading, is corrosive during combustion and difficult to handle, whereas the APL also contains organic compounds and sometimes high concentrations of ammonia that can be toxic to biological processes such as anaerobic digestion(8). Objective 2: Determine the impact of pyrolysis on PFAS and microconstituents Novel Research Approach Experiments will be conducted in a lab-scale batch pyrolysis system as described elsewhere(9). Dried municipal biosolids will be used as the influent feed, and effluent biochar, pyrolysis-liquid, and pyrolysis gas samples will be collected for PFAS analysis. In total, 37 PFAS compounds will be analyzed by PACE Analytical® in the solid, liquid, and gas phases to determine the impact of pyrolysis on the removal of PFAS from biosolids. These experiments will be completed by the end of 2021 and the analysis will be completed by March 2022. This experiment will be the first study to investigate the presence of PFAS in all three product phases (solid, liquid, gas) following pyrolysis. Results from Previous Lab-Scale Studies These results will be presented in light of Dr. McNamara's previously published data that found 3 possible fates of microconstituents during pyrolysis of biosolids: a. No removal: microconstituents reside with solids (e.g. metals) b. Volatilization: microconstituents leave solids and reside with pyrolysis liquid c. Transformation: microconstituents are chemically transformed Batch pyrolysis experiments revealed that pyrolysis removed triclocarban (Figure 1), triclosan, and nonylphenol from biosolids(10). Triclosan and nonylphenol volatilized away from the biochar and into the pyrolysis liquid; triclocarban was chemically transformed during pyrolysis. These results indicate that, while pyrolysis might likely remove PFAS from the solid biochar phase, PFAS might still likely reside with pyrolysis liquid requiring further downstream processing. The experiments and analysis to be completed by March, 2022 will confirm this hypothesis. Objective 3: Practical considerations for implementation of pyrolysis Pyrolysis has been extensively used for non-biosolids feedstocks but is not yet mainstream for biosolids applications, partly because of the overall operational complexity of these systems and cost considerations. Compared to biosolids land application, pyrolysis technologies represent a significantly higher capital investment for utilities since feed to pyrolysis must contain only 5 to 15% moisture, requiring thermal drying as a pre-requisite for pyrolysis. The capital and operational costs for drying could be very high depending on the moisture content of the influent biosolids(7). Including drying within the system boundary also makes the overall energy balance of a pyrolysis system less favorable. The energy available in pyrolysis gas and liquid products is approximately equal to the energy required for drying and pyrolysis of biosolids that are 20% solids. Based on anecdotal evidence from some of the demonstration facilities, phase-separation, i.e., separating the various pyrolysis products, downstream from the pyrolysis reactor can also be a challenge that could impact the quality of pyrolysis products for downstream applications. The bio-oil that is produced can be difficult to handle and potentially hazardous. To address the handling concerns with bio-oil, pyrolysis systems either need to run hot enough to not produce bio-oil or utilities need other plans for handling bio-oil post production. In short, while a potentially promising method for biosolids treatment, long-term operational viability of these systems for biosolids applications, sidestream characteristics, and emissions control requirements for these systems are yet to be proven. The potential benefits of pyrolysis include solids destruction resulting in less hauling costs, generation of pyrolysis-gas that could be co-combusted with digester gas or landfill gas, and generation of biochar which has potential as a value-added product and the potential to reduce PFAS. Biochar improves the soil characteristics by not breaking down readily, providing carbon sequestration and improving moisture-holding capacity of soils. Utilities considering pyrolysis have to weigh the potential benefits of the technology alongside costs and other operational considerations to determine the overall feasibility of the technology for full-scale implementation. Any government subsidies or credits to support PFAS removal, that might make pyrolysis more affordable to utilities, will also be reviewed and presented in this paper.

This paper was presented at the WEF Residuals and Biosolids Conference in Columbus, Ohio, May 24-27, 2022.

SpeakerMcNamara, Patrick

Presentation time

14:00:00

14:30:00

Session time

13:30:00

17:00:00

Session number03

Session locationGreater Columbus Convention Center, Columbus, Ohio

TopicLand Application, PFAS/Emerging Contaminants, pyrolysis

Author(s)

P. McNamara

Author(s)P. McNamara1; H. SANTHA2; L. Moss3; Z. Liu4

Author affiliation(s)Residuals and Biosolids Speaker; 1Black & Veatch; 2Residuals and Biosolids Speaker; 3California State University - Bakersfield; 4

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date May 2022

DOI10.2175/193864718825158431

Volume / Issue

Content sourceResiduals and Biosolids

Word count17