Best Strategy for Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM) in Drinking Water reduction?

Published on by in Technology

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Came across a strategy that appears to be probably one of the most cost efficient strategies for TTHM reduction. We are interested in challenging this perspective and be open to other alternatives that can be as efficient as this one we will describe for comparison and optimization.

Set up (patented) is a 0.1µ silicon carbide ceramic filtration running on cross flow mode. This set up allows to concentrate the coagulant agent up to 1,500ppm and more, so is kind of an "enhanced enhanced coagulation". There is no need to adjust pH,since the smaller floc can be removed by the 0.1µ pore. System has shown good results even vs ozone ,GAC/PAC and resins. We can provide actual results upon request. Energy consumption  is around 0.3 kw-hr per cubic meter.

Will greatly appreciate your feedback and questions that can be still unanswered.

Our objective is to identify and develop the most cost effective way to reduce TTHM

Carlos Gonzalez CTO

Green Innovation Technologies Inc.

gitpr@gitpr.com

Taxonomy

6 Answers

  1. Hi Carlos, I believe there bis a big future for ceramic filtration systems.  I was just wondering though as you run in cross flow mode, what is your recovery %.  Hopefully similar to the amount of sludge produced by a conventional clarification system (sedimentation of DAF)?

    1 Comment

    1. Dear Ian:

      Thanks for your mail. We have observed a range of 5% to 10% of blow down,however, % recovery and comparison vs conventional and DAF is application specifics.

      Best we can do for refrence is to describe on a qualitative way what we can expect. Please take a look on these two videos so you can get a better idea.

      - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiQZ46twn38

      - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIHw4JJzE_A

       

      Our set up allows to have a dynamic solid control, similar to a cooling tower blow down that actuates a blow down based on a set point of conductivity in order to control cycles of concentration. During local pilot runs on lake water, We could concentrate very easily NTU from 2.0 to 500 NTU with no com0plications, membrane cleaning each week.

      In any scenario, a compromise need to be established on local conditions so we can balance the specific objectives of the process (reduce NUT,TTHM..etc.), trans membrane pressure, filtrate rate and the frequency of membrane cleaning. There is a good chance to reach zero liquid discharge since the blow down can be routed to a unit that separates solids from the liquid

      The beauty of our solution  is that there is a protocol to be followed in order to guarantee results and protect clients best interests.

      1 samples are sent to our corporate offices for a preliminary assessment

      2. budget estimates are presented to client, if accepted

      3. pilot trials are run on the site

      4. actual units are deployed and commissioned, results are double check

       

      Additional notes

      - system can operate with solar panels inside a trailer 20 x 30 ft

      - DAF needs a down stream filtration system, we don't

      - our system is compact and requires at least 50% less space as compared with coagulation / floculation / sedimentation basins

      Let me know if more information is needed

      gitpr@gitpr.com

       

       

       

       

       

  2. Dear CARLOS GONZALEZ ,

     

    For purification water, including from TTHM,  ​you can try filters with various mineral sorbents, both activated and without activation.

    For  ​proper use of mineral sorbents requires the  ​input and output water ​quality and the ​quantity to be ​treated per ​day or hour.  ​

    The use of mineral sorbents allows you to get not only clean drinking water, but also healthy drinking water for human health.

    Distilled water is also pure, but it is little suitable for drinking, and can often be harmful to health.

    WHO establishes requirements for the chemical and biological purity of drinking water, and not the usefulness of drinking water for human health. The usefulness of drinking water should be established in each country or region, taking into account climatic and other conditions.

     

    You may ​ contact with ​full details if ​interested. ​

    Best regards.

    1 Comment

    1. Dear Vitalijus:

      Thank you for your mail. Not familiar with this type of filters. Will be worth to check if they are NSF listed for drinking water and what would be the OPEX for say 4 millions liters of water per day, including media replacement,reactivation. and disposal. Please provide information including any actual installation and data backing up TTHM formation reduction.

      1 Comment reply

      1. For such volumes of water, you can use filters with activated crushed glass. They are manufactured by the Company in Western Europe and are well known in the world for many years.
        Filters are prevents the formation of harmful disinfection byproducts (THMs, NCl3).
        Filters are certified for pools (NSF 50), potable water use (NSF 61), food & drinks markets (HCAAP).
         I am not a representative of this Company.
        My area of interest - this is the getting of high-quality, so-called "living'" water , using mineral sorbents.

         

  3. Suppose that the table underneath is presented to you? Which disinfectant would you choose? Even the price would not be an issue. the result is a trial performed over 1 year in Belgium.

    99.8% os the industry uses the left column. Why???? I don't know. But as long as you don't face the consequences of using an inferior product, you will be stuck with questions and problems like the ones above.

    PS for the courage (smart) people, you can contact me for the perfect solution.

    1 Comment

    1. Dear Gino:

      Thanks for your mail. Will be good to show what oxidizer is used at the left.

      Please provide the information so alll members are educated on your option.

      Will ​be worth to ​check if the option is NSF listed ​for drinking ​water and what ​would be the ​OPEX for say 4 ​millions liters ​of water per ​day, ​Please provide ​information ​including any ​actual ​installation ​and data ​backing up TTHM ​formation ​reduction. ​

      1 Comment reply

      1. Carlos, as we are a European based company, we follow the current Belgian regulations. We are PT 5 approved in Belgium, Germany, Austria and France. if you share me your e-mail address, I can send you a presentation of the report made.

  4. If you want to have less THM's use a product that produces less. Envirolyte Generators Electrically produce Anolyte ANK (AANK) which is Hypochlrous Acid, which makes significantly less THM's than many other Chlorine based products like Sodium Hypochlorite. Also the Chlorate levels in AANK will be lower than the current WHO recommendations, our ELA ANW generators can produce even lower levels that are way below what the EU are proposing. Some Hypochlorite products or in-situ electrolysis machines could be impacted by the proposed EU changes.

    Answered on by

    1 Comment

    1. John:

      Your comments are greatly appreciated. We also have had some experience with onsite hypochlorite generators including mixed oxidants and have not observed any consistent improvement. if your process can be of help,will be good to have the data that backs up the claims, so all we can benefit for this approach.

      Regarding the data we have, just email and we will provide accordingly.

      gitpr@gitpr.com

       

  5. Any Water Plasma has developed a patent pending technology in which a Programmable Logic Controlled (PLC) high voltage energy pulse is delivered directly into contaminated water at a controlled frequency. This energy pulse initiates primary and secondary electron avalanches which produce multiple oxidants (like OH, H, O, O3 and H2O2) and simultaneously creates high intensity UV radiation measuring between 60nm and 300nm. During the discharge of the pulse, an acoustic and hydrosonic shock wave travels through the reactor at 3 to 4 times Mach speed. AWP’s Electro-oxidation technology can be used for removal of: 1) A high voltage pulsed discharge is induced directly in the effluent stream generating multiple oxidants and radicals such as OH, O, H, O3, H2O2, etc. 2) Aggressive oxidant species are nonselective and oxidize all contaminants in the effluent. 3) A high intensity UV light released during the process is used for bacteria disinfection. 4) The high energy pulse generates a hydrosonic wave which creates acoustic cavitation. Bacteria colony clusters are then broken down because they have been exposed to oxidants and UV radiation. 5) Direct energy input into the water results in a high efficiency energy transfer as compared to conventional processes, thus reducing the overall operating cost per gallon. 6) Scale-causing minerals are precipitated and removed from the water, thus inhibiting scaling. 7) Without the use of biocides, the process results in effective biofouling control.

    http://www.bbnworld.net/water/awp_enkr.pdf   bbn@bbnworld.com

    1 Comment

    1. Frank:

      Thanks for your comments. Sounds interesting. Will be worth to check if the system can be listed NSF for drinking water and verify the OPEX and efficiency for TTHM formation reduction. Ozone,for example, is prone to make large NOM into smaller species which are not good for distribution network. Will take  a look on your website

      1 Comment reply

  6. There are several elements, but the simplest and least expensive is:  do not perchlorinate if not necessary, reduce the TOC, chlorinate to microbial standards, then convert residual to chloramine. WHO always says that microbial safety is most important, and it should not be compromised for the purpose of reducing DBPs. I wrote the original THM regulation in 1979, and I wrote a recent paper to the effect that THMs are not carcinogenic in drinking water, and bladder cancer rates have not changed in the US and Canada over 40 years since the THM regulation was in effect. Joe Cotruvo

    2 Comments

    1. Joseph:

      Thanks for your comment. Puerto Rico where we are located belongs to the EPA Region II. Federal regulations here are to be followed and complied, so looks like we have no option,specially for public systems, until regulations are changed.

      We receive 60% of the water from lakes.Water from eutrophic stratified lakes may need chlorination in order to oxidize Mn,Fe and reduce color/taste/smell. So some kind of pre oxidation is usually required.

      At the other side of the coin, the system that we describe is a barrier vs bacteria (0.1µ vs 5.0 µ of sand filtration), so less chlorine is needed to kill bugs so conversion to chloramine may not be necessary ; coagulant reduction and enhanced enhanced coagulation capability is another benefit.

      1 Comment reply

      1. We all want safe and good quality drinking water for a reasonable price. The THM regulation started the process of serious treatment of drinking water, but some people have gone too far. It has generated a cottage industry of analytical and treatment studies. As my paper showed, it is not clear that there is any adverse effect of THMs. We do know that whatever the water quality entering distribution, it arrives at the tap in poorer shape. Distribution is where we should be spending money.

    2. I meant "do not perchlorinate if not necessary" 

      2 Comment replies

      2. I think you meant "prechlorinate" not "perchlorinate". I agree that NOM removal is one of the biggest steps to take to reducing THMs (and many other chlorinated DBPs). Also reduces the expense of chlorination.