Ultraviolet Light Process Model Evaluation

1 / 26

# Ultraviolet Light Process Model Evaluation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Ultraviolet Light Process Model Evaluation. Presented by: Jennifer Hartfelder, P.E. Brown and Caldwell. Models to Evaluate UV Performance. USEPA Mathematical Protocol – USEPA Design Manual Municipal Wastewater Disinfection

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

## PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Ultraviolet Light Process Model Evaluation' - cleveland

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

### Ultraviolet Light Process Model Evaluation

Presented by:

Jennifer Hartfelder, P.E.

Brown and Caldwell

Models to Evaluate UV Performance
• USEPA Mathematical Protocol – USEPA Design Manual Municipal Wastewater Disinfection
• UVDIS – Software Developed by HydroQual, Inc. based on the USEPA Mathematical Protocol
• NWRI/AWWARF Protocol – Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidelines for Drinking Water and Water Reuse
UV Process Design Model
• Chick’s Law: N = Noe-kIt
• N = bacterial concentration remaining after exposure to UV
• No = initial bacterial concentration
• k = rate constant
• I = intensity of UV
• t = time of exposure
USEPA - Step 2Calculate Intensity
• Biological Assay
• Direct Calculation Method
Average Intensity
• Iavg = (nominal Iavg)(Fp)(Ft)
• Fp = the ratio of the actual output of the lamps to the nominal output of the lamps
• Ft = the ratio of the actual transmittance of the quartz sleeve or Teflon tubes to the nominal transmittance of the enclosure
USEPA - Step 4Determine Dispersion Coefficient
• Establish relationship between x and u
• hL = cf(x)(u)2
• Plot log(u) and log(x) versus log(ux)
• Dispersion number, d
• d = E/(ux)
• d = 0.03 to 0.05
• E = 50 to 200 cm2/sec
• Plot log(N’/No) vs. Q/Wn and u vs. Q/Wn
USEPA - Step 7Calculate Reactor Sizing
• Number of lamps required:
• Q/Wn – determined from the log (N’/No) vs. maximum loading graphs developed in Step 5 for the N’ developed in Step 6
• Lamps required = Q/(Q/Wn)/Wn
Arc length

Centerline spacing

Watts output

Quartz Sleeve Diameter

No. of banks in series

Aging Factor

Fouling Factor

Flow

Dispersion Coefficient

Average Intensity

Number of lamps

Staggered

Percent transmissivity

UVDIS Input
NWRI/AWWARF Protocol
• Determine UV inactivation of selected microorganisms under controlled batch conditions by conducting a bioassay
• Dose-Response Curves
• Microorganism
• MS-2 bacteriophage
• E. coli
• Pilot vs. full scale study
UV Dose
• German drinking water standard: 40 mW-sec/cm2
• US wastewater industry standard: 30 mW-sec/cm2
• CDPHE WWTP design criteria: 30 mW-sec/cm2
• US reuse standard: 50 - 100 mW-sec/cm2
• NWRI/AWWARF based on upstream filtration:
• Media - 100 mW-sec/cm2
• Membrane - 80 mW-sec/cm2
• Reverse Osmosis - 40 mW-sec/cm2
Protocol Evaluation
• For peak hour conditions:
• Q = 3.5 MGD (9,200 lpm)
• SS = 45 mg/L
• No = 1.50E+06 No./100 mL
• N = 6,000 No./100 mL
• Transmittance = 60%
• Allowable headloss = 1.5 inches
Pros

Apply same calculations to all systems

Can be used for uniform, staggered, concentric, and tubular lamp arrays

Cons

Least conservative

Assumes flow perpendicular to lamp

USEPA Mathematical Protocol
Pros

HydroQual is in the process of updating the program to address some of the cons

More conservative than USEPA protocol

Cons

Less conservative than bioassay

For low-pressure systems only

For flow parallel to lamps only

Dispersion coefficient, E, is assumed

UVDIS
Pros

Most conservative

May assume a conservative required dose (50 to 100 mW-sec/cm2)

Cons

Bioassay tests have not been conducted yet for all systems

Bioassay is costly

Scale-up issues

Bioassays have not used the same protocol (i.e., microorganism)

More research on how to select required dose is necessary

NWRI/AWWARF Protocol
Conclusions
• Bioassay is most conservative sizing method
• More research required:
• Dose selection protective of human health
• Scale-up issues
• Target organism
• Engineer should require a field performance test and performance bond