Evaluating Coagulants

for Water Treatment

Kari Duncan – City of Lake Oswego

&
Doug Wise – Eugene Water & Electric Board

PNWS-AWWA Section Conference

May 2, 2008
 Overview

 Varieties of Coagulants:
Inorganic – Organic

 Common Uses
 Case Studies:
EWEB – City of Lake Oswego
 Entrance Strategy

1. Jar Test
2. Pilot Filter Evaluation
3. Cost Evaluation
4. ½ Plant Scale Test
 Entrance Strategy cont….

5. Plant Scale Trial

6. Calculate “Real” Cost
7. Evaluation Step
 Operational Effectiveness
 Look for Unintended Consequences
 Aluminum Sulfate
(Al2(SO4)3 · 14 H2O

coagulants  aluminum sulfate,

 Inorganic
aluminum chloride and ferric compounds
 Reactwith alkalinity to form positive ions
which remove contaminants by adsorption.
 Increasingturbidity  higher (sometimes
dramatically higher) feed rates.
 PACL (Polymeric Inorganic
Coagulants)

 “Generic”
name that encompasses
ACH, Sumaclear, Pass-C and others
 Product variables:
 Basicity 50%  80+%
 Al:Cl ratio
 Al2O3 content
 PACL

 A highly charged species that require

little or no alkalinity to precipitate floc.
 Due to the high charge of the PACL’s
dose may not increase as much
during increasing contaminant loading
 PACL : ACH
 PACL formula: Al2(OH)(X)Cl(6-x)
 Al:Cl
ratio increases as basicity
increases
 ACH ‘special type of PACL’
 Al:Cl ratio of 2:1
 Basicity of 83%
 Al2O3 content of 23%
 Molecular Weight Comparison

 Alum : max MW of 1,000

 PACL: MW of 500 – 2,500

 ACH: 4,000 – 5,000 (some up to 10,000)

 Floc Size

 Inorganic coagulants (Alum), and low

basicity PACL form more voluminous,
fragile floc.
 With increasing charge, PACL tend
to form smaller floc with greater
density
 ACH forms a very tight, dense floc
 Typical dosages

 Product sales advisors often quote an

“Aluminum percentage ratio”

For example, if the Al in the PACL is 4x that of

Alum, they will cite an expected 25% of alum
dosage.

 50% basicity PACL; approx 80% of alum dosage

 ACH: approx 33% of alum dosage.
 Coagulation Control

 Jar Mix
 Pilot Filters
 Stream Current Monitors
 Zeta Potentiometers
Coagulant Control: Jar Test
Coagulant Control: Control Filters
Coagulant Control: Current Monitor
 Coagulant Control

 Jar Test: Remember to look for smaller

denser floc due to high basicity
when using high molecular
weight products

 Control Filters
 Streaming Current Monitor
 Benefits

 Increased filter runs

 Reduced sludge generation
 Sludge compacts / dewaters better
 Greater turbidity removal capacity
 Effective in low water temperatures
 PACL does not lower pH
 Check With Friends

 Drinking Water Program

 Bay Hills Water Association
 City of Creswell
 Garden Valley Water District
 City of Lowell
 City of Myrtle Point
 City of Waldport
 City of Yachats
 Cautions
What is in the “magic” elixir?
 More Cautions!

 PACL products range in grade and

composition; test product(s) extensively
before committing to their use.
 Some products are sensitive to chlorine.
 Productswhich form a suspension or
generate sludge after only six months of
storage are very low grade.
 Case Study #1

Eugene Water & Electric Board’s

Hayden Bridge Filtration Plant

 EWEB

 72 MGD Raw Water Flow (108 MGD in 2009)

 McKenzie River Source
 Direct Filtration (summer)
 Conventional Filtration (winter)
 Alum coagulant
 Pre-chlorinate Cl2 gas
 50% Caustic: corrosion control
 EWEB

7 month trial of “Sumaclear 1000” from

Summit Research Lab
 Used Sumaclear predominantly through
2006.
 Trialexamined cost and filter run times
while maintaining existing filtered water
turbidity goal of 0.035 NTU.
 EWEB Poly Alum vs. Alum

12.00

10.00 Alum

8.00 P/A
Dose (mg/L)

6.00
Linear
(P/A)
4.00
Linear
2.00 (Alum )

0.00
90

04

34

35

41

50

50

60

70

77

40

50

40

74
0.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

2.

2.

4.

7.
Raw Turbidity
 EWEB Field Results

 Sumaclear 1000 dose was approximately 1/3 of

Alum with low raw water turbidity.
 With raw water turbidity above 4 ntu, Sumaclear
1000 was approximately 1/2 of Alum dose.
 Experienced longer filter runs with Sumaclear.
 Sumaclear resulted in an overall economic
benefit (chemicals, wash water, sludge
management) of approximately 20%.
 EWEB Concerns

 Some changes in distribution

water quality coincided with
Summaclear 1000 trials.
* Apparent DBP increase
* Small Lead and Copper increase
(may no longer be “optimized)
 EWEB Finds Fault

A: We changed coagulant.
B: Our system water quality changed.
Therefore: the coagulant change made
the system water quality
change.
 EWEB

Review of JAWWA Article

on Cl- / SO4 Ratio Edwards & Triantafyllidou – July 2007

“…as the relative concentration of

chloride to sulfate increased in a
water supply, a utility was more likely
to have a higher 90th-percentile lead
concentration.”
 PACL : ACH
 PACL formula: Al2(OH)(X)Cl(6-x)
 Al:Cl
ratio increases as basicity
increases
 ACH ‘special type of PACL’
 Al:Cl ratio of 2:1
 Basicity of 83%
 Al2O3 content of 23%
 EWEB

Not so fast….
There Are Other Considerations
(EWEB)

 Multiple
changes in treatment
variables at the time of test:
 Added 15 MG Clearwell (May 2003)
 Changed chlorination practice (May 2004)
 Switched from Lime to Caustic (July 2004)
 Switched from Alum to Sumaclear 1000
(2005-2006)
 EWEB – Next Steps

 Continue Monitoring.
 Special Monitoring.
 Make Gradual Treatment
Changes.
 Wait and Measure.
 Case Study #2

City of Lake Oswego

Water Treatment Plant

 City of Lake Oswego
Water Treatment Plant

 16 MGD
 Clackamas River Source
 Direct Filtration Plant
 Alum (Coagulant)
 Pre-chlorinate with Hypochlorite
 Lime: corrosion control
 City of Lake Oswego

 Feeds Alum alone during low turbidity.

 Feedsa combination of Alum and Pass-C
(Hydortech product) during high turbidity
events.
 Pass-C:
 Al = 5/4 % ??
 Al2O3: 10.3%
 Basicity: 55%
 Alum and Pass-C vs. Raw NTU
100

90

80
Alum/Pass-C mg/L, Raw NTU

ALUM,
mg/L
70
Pass-c
60 mg/l dry

50 Raw NTU
Avg
40

30

20

10

0
5

9
/1

/8

12

19

26
5
/1

/2

/2

1/
12

12

1/

1/

1/
12

12

12
 Alum and PassC vs. Raw NTU (2 axes)
18 180
ALUM,
mg/L

16 160 Pass-c
mg/l dry

14 140 Raw NTU

Avg

12 120
Alum and PassC (mg/L)

Raw NTU
10 100

8 80

6 60

4 40

2 20

0 0
DATE 12/5 12/10 12/15 12/20 12/25 12/30 1/4 1/9 1/14 1/19 1/24 1/29
 Alum mg/L vs. Raw NTU (without Pass-C)

50
ALUM,
45 mg/L
40
Alum mg/L and Raw NTU

ntu avg
35

30

25

20

15

10

1/6
11/11

11/18

11/25

12/2

12/9

12/16

12/23

12/30

1/13
 City of Lake Oswego
Field Results
 The use of Pass-C at 3 to 11 mg/L decreases
Alum use by up to (75%)* during periods of high
raw water turbidity.

 The use of Pass-C at high turbidity prevents the

need for Operators to add additional alkalinity.

 Improves ease of operation

 Cost differences appear to be nominal

* Rough number
 City of Lake Oswego Summary

 Wide variety of products available.

 Trial runs are very important.
 Control your variables.
 Perform a cost analysis.

 Shop around and do your research.

Lessons Learned From
Coagulant Trials

Intuitive expectations
may be erroneous.
 Lessons Learned

Changes in the distribution system

may result from changes in
treatment at the plant.
 Lessons Learned

Unknown, unreported and / or

undocumented consequences
may be common.
 Lessons Learned

Change only ONE thing at a time.

 Lessons Learned

 Wait

 Measure

 Interpret
 Acknowledgements

 Kari
Duncan for her work in documenting
these results.
 Randy
Prock for developing the data at
Hayden Bridge.
 The Operators at both plants for their
patience and persistence.
Questions?