Advances in Environmental Research 7 (2003) 687–694

Centrate viscosity for continuous monitoring of polymer feed in

dewatering applications
Mohammad M. Abu-Orfa,*, Christopher A. Walkerb, Steven K. Dentelc
a
Biosolids R&D Director, Vivendi Water North American Technology Center, 1901 West Garden Road, Vineland, NJ 08360, USA
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA

Abstract

The researchers have previously documented that minimum centrate or filtrate viscosity using batch measurement
indicates the optimum polymer dose as determined by capillary suction time (CST) and solids recovery. This paper
describes research conducted to test the use of continuous centrate viscosity measurements for polymer dose
monitoring in the biosolids dewatering process. Initial results indicate that liquid stream viscosity must be measured
on-site since filtrate samples in the overdosing range decrease in viscosity over several hours following sampling. A
sensitive viscometer is required for continuous monitoring since the observed viscosity range is from 1 to 3 centipoise
(cP). An international search for viscometer vendors showed that two types of viscometers could be used for this
purpose: rotational and vibrational. Only data from rotational type viscometers were obtained for this paper. The
viscometer was installed to continuously sample centrate from the centrifugation of anaerobic digested biosolids. Full-
scale dose response experiments showed that minimum viscosity correlates with maximum cake solids measurements,
and thus such viscometers can be used in monitoring and controlling polymer feed during dewatering. However,
several modifications are required for such viscometers to withstand the demanding conditions in wastewater treatment
plants. Use of viscosity for control of polymer dose requires use of a minimum value, necessitating a complex control
algorithm.
䊚 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Viscosity; Centrate; Polymer; Monitoring; Dewatering; Conditioning

1. Introduction this optimum dose is thus a considerable challenge (e.g.

Optimizing polymer dosage in the biosolids condi-
tioning process has been proven to be cost effective. In
addition, accurate control of polymer dosing is crucial
for optimized dewatering, with automation of condition-
ing as a key factor for improvement in dewatering
efficiency (Dentel et al., 1995). However, this is not an
easy task, since determining the optimum polymer dose
in full-scale operations using standard tests is usually
problematic and ineffective. Moreover, the optimum
dose is rarely constant due to the hourly and daily
changes of solids and solutions properties. Maintaining
*Corresponding author. Fax: q1-509-692-0202.
E-mail address: abu-orfm@usfilter.com (M.M. Abu-Orf).
Abu-Orf and Dentel, 1998).
A previous project supported by the Water Environ-
ment Research Foundation (WERF) demonstrated that
parameters that have the potential for greatest success
are those based upon fundamental characteristics of the
biosolids or separation process (Dentel et al., 1995).
Although this project successfully demonstrated effec-
tive monitoring and control in several wastewater treat-
ment facilities using the streaming current detector
(SCD), with a payback period of only 3 months in one
case, the SCD is not widely used. Moreover, charge
neutralization as a control mechanism is a prerequisite
for using the SCD, and cationic polymer must be used
as a conditioner for successful control. In addition, and
according to the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey Report

1093-0191/03/$ - see front matter 䊚 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 0 9 3 - 0 1 9 1 Ž 0 2 . 0 0 0 3 6 - 9
688 M.M. Abu-Orf et al. / Advances in Environmental Research 7 (2003) 687–694
to the Congress, 57% of wastewater treatment facilities
in the US have a design flow range of 0.1–10 MGD,
and these treat approximately one-third of the overall
generated wastewater flow. Obviously, polymer expen-
diture at these plants will not justify their purchase of
any existing polymer addition control technologies
(range $10 000–60 000). Thus, the availability of a
more cost-effective and affordable system would offer
these plants the option to monitor and further control
their polymer additions. This paper reports on the use
of continuous liquid stream (filtrateycentrate) viscosity
measurement for monitoring polymer dosage in bioso-
lids and residuals conditioning processes.
1.1. Use of the liquid stream viscosity
Previous laboratory and full-scale dose–response
experiments monitoring the liquid stream (filtrateycen-
trate) viscosity were conducted at three different was-
tewater treatment plants using different types of
biosolids and waste activated residuals, different cationic
polymers, and using different dewatering systems (Den-
tel and Abu-Orf, 1995). All results demonstrated that
the minimum centrateyfiltrate viscosity indicates opti-
mum polymer dosage as compared to standard indicators
of optimum dose. Significant statistical correlations were
established: minimum capillary suction time (CST),
maximum solids recovery, and minimum total solids in
the liquid stream correlate with minimum liquid stream
viscosity. Viscosity measurements were conducted most-
ly on-site with an ultra-low (UL) adapter for a Brook-
field LVT viscometer with 60 rev.ymin rotational speed.
Only batch measurements were conducted, using a 16-
ml liquid stream sample at constant temperature. No
continuous, on-line viscosity measurements were con-
ducted. More recent research (Dentel et al., 2002) used
residuals from water treatment facilities utilizing differ-
ent cationic, anionic, and non-ionic polymers for con-
ditioning different chemically based residuals; again, a
distinctive minimum liquid stream viscosity indicated
the optimum polymer dose. However, no continuous,
on-line viscosity measurements were conducted, and the
same viscometer as previously stated was used. Other
researchers in the UK have recently documented similar
results (Papavasilopoulos, 1997). Their experiments
were also limited to the laboratory and used alum
residuals from water treatment works. An Ostwald
viscometer Type ‘C’ was used for their viscosity meas-
urements, and continuous, full-scale viscosity measure-
ments were not conducted. The liquid stream viscosity
is also affected by the shear and mixing time during
conditioning. Abu-Orf and Dentel (1999) have shown
that the viscosity changes due to mixing factors, where
increase mixing (time or shear) leads to optimum
dosages observed at higher doses.
The aforementioned research has documented that in
order to assure success for the on-line viscometry
approach, reliable and reproducible measurements of the
liquid stream viscosity must be established within the
range 1–3 centipoise (cP) on a continuous basis with a
high level of accuracy. The viscosity measurement
approach for monitoring and controlling polymer addi-
tions in biosolids and residuals conditioning applications
has the following advantages:
● The minimum liquid stream viscosity indicating opti-
mum polymer dosage is observed for all types of
biosolids and residuals and all types of polymers
(anionic, cationic, and non-ionic). If overdosing,
residual polymer will always be detected in the liquid
stream by the increase in viscosity, regardless of the
conditioning mechanisms.
● The liquid stream viscosity is sensitive to changes in
the mixing conditions during polymer conditioning.
● The cost of the viscometer is very reasonable, con-
stituting 5–50% of the costs of alternative technolo-
gies. Thus, an affordable, cost-effective product could
be available to small treatment plants, where existing
systems are limited to large-scale plants with high
polymer expenditure.
● Plant operators easily grasp the viscosity concept,
since polymer viscosity is observed during polymer
mixing and preparation. Educating operators that the
viscosity of the liquid stream should be approximate-
ly 1 cP at optimum dose with minimal or no residual
polymer will be an easy task. Operators’ understand-
ing of the technology is a very important factor for
its acceptance and ultimate success (Abu-Orf and
Dentel, 1998).
Currently, process viscometers are used in many
applications to control consistency for inks, coatings,
and adhesives. Others applications include the food
production and chemical industries. In general, process
viscometers are used to provide a specific consistency
in the higher viscosity ranges. However, the required
range for polymer dose control is at the lower limits of
these viscometers, which poses a challenge to the current
commercially available instruments. Efforts to locate
such viscometers in the past have failed; however,
improved viscometers for this purpose have recently
been commercialized.
The overall objective of this research was to evaluate
commercially available process viscometers in real time
biosolids and residual conditioning operations. This was
to be done in full-scale operations, acquiring on-line
viscosity measurements while monitoring andyor inten-
tionally varying the polymer feed rate. If successful, an
additional objective was then to identify any further
modifications to this system to allow its reliable use for
automatic dose control.
 M.M. Abu-Orf et al. / Advances in Environmental Research 7 (2003) 687–694
Fig. 1. Sample characteristics from a dose response test on ferric chloride residuals at Stanton.
1.2. Importance of on-site viscosity measurement
A dose–response test, as described in Abu-Orf and
Dentel (1997), was conducted at the water residuals
dewatering facility (belt filter press) of the Stanton
Water Treatment Plant, operated by United Water of
Delaware and located in New Castle County, Delaware,
USA. Viscosity measurements were conducted on-site
with an ultra-low (UL) adapter for a Brookfield LVT
viscometer. Capillary suction time (CST) and time to
filter TTF tests were conducted on the conditioned
samples at the laboratory. The results are presented in
Fig. 1 which shows the CST and TTF with the different
polymer doses used. The figure shows that minimum
filtrate viscosity at ;3.9 lbyton (1.8 kgyT) is well
correlated with TTF results. However, the CST results
failed to indicate an optimum dose. Of interest in the
figure is the comparison between the liquid-stream
viscosity measured both on-site and 3 h later in the
laboratory, at the same temperature of 9 8C in both
cases. The measured viscosities were substantially less
in the latter case. The polymer in solution, which was
thought to be the cause of the viscosity at higher
dosages, may have adhered to the surfaces in the plastic
sample bottles, and hence left the solution less viscous.
Nevertheless, minimum filtrate viscosity on the lab
measurements again was correlated with minimum TTF.
Viscosity influences the rate of sample flow through a
porous medium, explaining the relationship between
these quantities. The data in Fig. 1 also show the need
for sensitive viscometry if used for on-line monitoring
of polymer dosage.
689
1.3. Commercially available on-line viscometers
An international literature search was conducted to
identify commercially available viscometers for the
observed range of viscosity. Findings indicate that these
viscometers operate on two different theoretical bases:
1. Rotational based viscometers. Brookfield (Middle-
boro, MA, USA) has recently improved its Viscosel
line viscometers to be able to measure viscosity
within the range 0–5 cP with "0.1 cP. These
viscometers use a flow-through arrangement for the
liquid stream.
2. Vibrational based viscometers. Two manufacturers
were identified: Haake (Karlsruhe, Germany) and
Hydramotion (North Yorkshire, England, UK). The
Haake viscometer, which was being developed at the
time, did not exhibit satisfactory response to different
dilutions of polymer samples (not presented in this
paper) and thus was not evaluated further. These
types of viscometers are usually installed in-line on
either a bypass chamber or directly in a liquid stream
pipeline.
The reported experiments in this paper only used
rotational type viscometers. Further research is antici-
pated that will use vibrational or rod viscometers since
they have certain advantages on rotational viscometers
to be discussed later. Full-scale evaluations were also
conducted at the 110 MGD Wilmington Pollution Con-
trol Facility (Wilmington, DE).
690 M.M. Abu-Orf et al. / Advances in Environmental Research 7 (2003) 687–694
Table 1
Effect of flow rate on viscometer reading
Flow rate Viscometer output (10 min time)
Zero (batch) 31.5–31.6%
2.0 lymin 32.9–33.2%
7.5 lymin 34.0–35.5%
2. Wilmington full scale experiments
2.1. Viscometer description
The viscometer used in the work described in this
paper was provided by Brookfield Engineering Labora-
tories, Inc. Model VTE150. The viscometer consists of
three parts: sampling chamber, universal mounting
bracket, and the Viscosel that contains the motor and
electronic parts. The sampling chamber is made of
plastic with a 3y4 inch (1.9 cm) inlet and 1.5 inch (3.8
cm) outlet. Modifications to this chamber included a
heavy stainless steel cup as the outer cylinder that sits
at the bottom of the chamber and allows fluid flow
through three holes in its lower sides. The fluid flows
from the bottom of the plastic cup, and slowly enters
the steel cup and overflow to the outlet of the plastic
sampling chamber. The hollow inner cylinder rotates at
a constant speed of 50 rev.ymin inside the steel cup,
and the fluid flow rate through the viscometer is in the
range of 1y8–2.0 gpm (0.5–7.5 lys). The lower ranges
are recommended in order to assure laminar flow for
precise viscosity measurements. The manufacturer indi-
cated the viscometer is capable of measuring viscosities
in the range 0–5 cP. The viscometer provides a 4–20
mA output signal and a digital display in the range of
0–99.9%. The viscometer was connected to a strip chart
recorder for reading documentation. Batch viscosity
measurements were conducted by temporarily plugging
the holes in the bottom of the metal cup, then filling it
with the desired fluid.
2.2. Installation of system components
The viscometer was installed at the dewatering build-
ing of the 110 MGD (4.8 m3 ys) Wilmington Pollution
Control Facility (Wilmington, DE). The facility dewa-
ters anaerobically digested biosolids using centrifugation
and conditions the biosolids with a cationic polymer
(Percol 757). The centrifuge sits on the building’s
second floor and the viscometer was mounted to the
walls of the first floor so that the centrate could flow
under gravity to the sampling chamber. The viscometer
was simply mounted to the walls using its universal
brackets. The leveling of the viscometer for accurate
measurements was accomplished by adjusting the ball
socket joint of the mounting bracket and was assured
Observations
Very stable reading
Stable
Not as stable
through the bubble level on the top of the unit. A tee
junction was used to also connect the tubing to tap
water in order to flush the tubing and clean the viscom-
eter when needed.
2.3. Effect of flow rate on viscosity
Initial observation of viscosity readings indicated that
the centrate flow rate affected the output of the viscom-
eter, although the manufacturer provides no means to
control this flow rate. Accordingly a valve was intro-
duced to the tubing at the bottom of the sampling
chamber that allowed manual control of the flow rate
of the centrate, which was measured using a stop watch
and a graduated container. An experiment to test the
effect of the flow rate on the viscometer reading was
conducted using tap water at 26 8C; the results are
presented in Table 1. The results show that increasing
the flow rate caused an increased measured viscosity.
To standardize readings, a flow rate of 1 lymin was
then chosen, with the flow rate assured by controlling
the valve beneath the sampling chamber.
2.4. Sensor calibration and shakedown
Following installation, a representative from Brook-
field assured proper calibration of the viscometer using
a standard solution at 5 cP, using a temperature-con-
trolled bath and using the batch arrangement as
described earlier. The entire range of the viscometer
output (0–99.9%) must be translated to its proper
viscosity in cP, and a linear relationship between the
digital reading and the actual viscosity had to be
established. This calibration was also needed for later
representation of the centrate viscosity. Several dilutions
of polymer solutions (Percol 757) were prepared as in
Dentel et al. (1993) at the laboratory and were then
transported to the plant. The viscosity of these polymer
solutions was measured on-site with a Brookfield LVT
viscometer, with an ultra low adapter (measurement
numbers are shown on the strip chart recording). The
viscosity for the same samples was also measured with
the on-line viscometer (Viscosel) using the batch
arrangement described earlier for approximately 0.5 h
each sample to document the constant reading. The
results are presented in Fig. 2, which shows values from
the strip chart recording of the Viscosel reading along
 M.M. Abu-Orf et al. / Advances in Environmental Research 7 (2003) 687–694
Fig. 2. Strip chart recording of the Viscosel viscometer during calibration and the relationship between the viscosity measurements
and the strip chart recording.
with the respective viscosities of these samples. Note
that although the upper limit of the Viscosel viscometer
is 5 cP, measurement of a polymer sample with a
viscosity of 5.21 cP was not outside the strip chart
recording range. The relationship between the digital
reading of the viscometer and actual solution viscosity
is also presented. As shown in Fig. 2, this relationship
is linear (R 2s0.99912), which assured proper operation
of the viscometer.
2.5. Continuous dose–response testing
Dose–response testing was carried out, in which
polymer dose was varied and the sensor response was
observed. These procedures were carried out as docu-
mented by Abu-Orf and Dentel (1997). Viscosity meas-
urements were compared to standard testing results such
as the capillary suction time (CST) test, solids analysis,
and streaming current (not shown). The dose–response
test establishes the device’s response over a wide poly-
691
mer dose range in an effort to verify the correlation
between centrate viscosity and optimum conditions. The
dose–response test also indicates the system’s general
performance, the sensor’s sensitivity, and the response
and stabilization times following intentional dose chang-
es. Initially, the biosolids flow rate was approximately
340 gpm (21 lys), the polymer feed was approximately
11.5 gpm (0.73 lys), and the centrate viscosity was
approximately 1.05 cP, which suggested the polymer
dose was at or near the optimal level (Dentel and Abu-
Orf, 1995). The polymer feed was increased to approx-
imately 19.5 gpm (1.23 lys), equivalent to 18.4 g
polymerykg dry solids. The system was then allowed to
stabilized for 30 min, and samples were collected for
analysis. This procedure was repeated using sequential
decrements in polymer feed and the continuous centrate
viscosity readings shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3 shows that the centrate viscosity was high at
the maximum polymer dose, decreasing as the dose was
cut, reaching a minimum of approximately 0.998 cP,
692 M.M. Abu-Orf et al. / Advances in Environmental Research 7 (2003) 687–694

Fig. 3. Controlled stepwise decrease in polymer feed and the corresponding continuous centrate viscosity.

and increasing again with further decreases in polymer
dose. At a polymer dose of approximately 9 gykg, the
centrifuge lost its proper operation, with no cake being
formed and the centrate turning black, so the test was
terminated. Note that the wide range of polymer doses
only changed the viscosity from ;1.5 cP down to 1.0
cP, and back up again to ;1.6 cP. At a dose between
12 and 13 gykg, the viscosity reached its minimum
value, and accordingly, this can be considered the
optimum dosage. This was indeed the case, as Fig. 4
shows by graphing the same viscosities with the meas-
ured cake solids. At this polymer range (12–13 gykg),
the cake solids reached its maximum, indicating opti-
mum dewatering. However, the cake solids reached
maximum values at a slightly higher polymer dose than
indicated by minimum viscosity. These results also agree
with dewatering data obtained with water treatment
residuals, using on-site batch viscosity measurements
(Dentel et al., 2002).
Fig. 5 shows the centrate TS and CST values for the
same polymer doses as in Fig. 4. The CST displays a
monotonic increase with doses over the entire range,
while the centrate total solids were very high at the
lowest doses (above process failure) and decreased

Fig. 4. Continuous on-line viscosity and percent cake solids at the different polymer dose.
 M.M. Abu-Orf et al. / Advances in Environmental Research 7 (2003) 687–694 693

Fig. 5. Centrate TS and CST results for the same polymer feed.

continuously until remaining low and constant at the
higher polymer doses. Thus, neither parameter is able
to indicate the optimum dose. With decreasing of
polymer feed, the measured continuous streaming cur-
rent (results not shown) exhibited a transition from
positive values to negative ones around the same opti-
mum polymer feed range as indicated by the cake solids
and the centrate viscosity.
2.6. Continuous monitoring of centrate viscosity
The centrate viscosity was monitored at steady con-
ditions for several weeks without any imposed changes
to the operating conditions. Fig. 6 shows a typical strip
chart recording of the centrate viscosity over 11 h with
a constant biosolids flow rate and polymer feed. Prior
to this period, the centrate viscosity had remained
constant at approximately 1.24 cP for 4 h (data not
shown). Over the 11 h presented in the graph, the
viscosity increased to approximately 1.73 cP even
though the polymer and biosolids feed rates remained
constant. Although this increase might seem small, it is
higher than what was encountered with the wide range
of polymer feed values used in the dose response test
previously described. Evidently, the biosolids character-
istics had changed, but due to the nature of the relation-
ship of the viscosity to the polymer feed, one cannot
determine whether a decrease or increase in the polymer

Fig. 6. Continuous monitoring of the centrate viscosity at constant polymer dose and sludge feed.
694 M.M. Abu-Orf et al. / Advances in Environmental Research 7 (2003) 687–694
demand has occurred based solely on the viscosity
reading. However, a polymer feed change may be
warranted to bring the viscosity back to its previously
encountered lower value, and a viscosity-based control
system using a minimum search algorithm would deter-
mine whether the polymer pump feed should be
increased or decreased (most probably the case) to keep
the viscosity to its minimum value, which could be
different from its original value.
3. Implications
A newly available viscometer is able to detect chang-
es in liquid stream viscosity over a wide range of
polymer doses. Thus, viscosity can be used in monitor-
ing biosolids changes and adjusting for polymer feed if
a minimum search algorithm is used. However, use of
such an algorithm will cause delay due to the search
nature of the algorithm. Several modifications are
required to optimize viscometer performance such as
the ones used in this research: first, a constant centrate
feed must be assured using a constant feed pump that
will increase viscometer sensitivity. Also, due to the
slow flow of the liquid stream, deposits from the centrate
foam were observed to accumulate at the top of the
viscometer at times and the surfaces of the inner cylinder
and the cup, which might eventually affect the viscom-
eter reading. Thus, an automatic cleaning mechanism is
required, and the viscometer is likely to require daily
cleaning. These specific problems should not be encoun-
tered with a vibrational or rod type viscometer, however.
Further research should focus on increasing the sensitiv-
ity of viscometry, evaluating a vibrational type viscom-
eter, and finally integrating viscometers with a standard
search algorithm for automatic control purposes. Vibra-
tional type viscometers, if feasible, might be more
successful and more appealing to plant operators. Final-
ly, viscometry is hypothesized to be more effective in
measuring filtrate viscosity from the initial gravity
drainage zone of both gravity belt thickeners and belt
filter presses due to the greater effect of residual
polymer concentrations and the more rapid response
time.
4. Conclusions
Use of continuous measurement of centrate viscosity
is feasible for monitoring polymer feed in dewatering
applications. Viscometer sensitivity and response is
adequate for the observed changes in the liquid stream
changes. However, more sensitive viscometry is
advantageous.
Full-scale, continuous dose–response testing showed
a relationship between minimum viscosity and optimum
dewaterability as indicated by cake solids recovery.
Although the dewatered residuals were at a satisfactory
solids concentration at the minimum viscosity dose, the
cake dryness could usually be increased at higher
polymer doses. Operationally, the minimum viscosity
dose could be considered as acceptable, and in some
cases as optimal.
Use of liquid stream viscosity for control of polymer
dose involves the use of a minimum value, requiring a
more complex control algorithm. More research is need-
ed to test the feasibility of this parameter to control
polymer dose in real time operation. Other types of
dewatering devices, along with different viscometers,
must be tested to optimize this usage.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dick Bates of Brookfield for
graciously providing the required equipment and tech-
nical assistance. The authors also thank the AWWARF
for funding part of the presented work. The Wilmington
facility staff are also acknowledged for providing on
site assistance.
References
Abu-Orf, M.M., Dentel, S.K., 1997. Polymer dose assessment
using the streaming current detector. Water Environ. Res.
69 (6), 1075–1085.
Abu-Orf, M.M., Dentel, S.K., 1998. Automatic control of
polymer dose using the streaming current detector. Water
Environ. Res. 70 (5), 1005–1018.
Abu-Orf, M.M., Dentel, S.K., 1999. Rheology as a tool for
polymer dose assessment and control. J. Environ. Eng.
ASCE 125 (12), 1133–1141.
Dentel, S.K., Abu-Orf, M.M., 1995. Laboratory and full-scale
studies of liquid stream viscosity and streaming current for
characterization and monitoring of dewaterability. Water
Res. 29, 2663–2672.
Dentel, S.K., Abu-Orf, M.M., Griskowitz, N.J., 1993. Guidance
Manual for Polymer Selection in Wastewater Treatment
Plants. WERF Publication D0013. Water Environment
Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA.
Dentel, S.K., Abu-Orf, M.M., Griskowitz, N.J., 1995. Polymer
Monitoring and Control in Biosolids Management. Water
Environmental Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA.
Dentel, S.K., Abu-Orf, M.M., Walker, C.A., 2002. Fundamen-
tal Methods for Optimizing Residuals Dewatering.
AWWARF, in press.
Papavasilopoulos, E.N., 1997. Viscosity as a criterion for the
optimum dosing in waterworks sludges. J. Chart. Inst. Water
Environ. Manage. 11 (3), 217–224.