Session C9
Paper 228
Disclaimer—This paper partially fulfills a writing requirement for first year (freshman) engineering students at the
University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering. This paper is a student, not a professional, paper. This paper is
based on publicly available information and may not provide complete analyses of all relevant data. If this paper is used for
any purpose other than these authors’ partial fulfillment of a writing requirement for first year (freshman) engineering
students at the University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering, the user does so at his or her own risk.
ELECTRO WATER SEPARATION: A METHOD TO PURIFY WASTEWATER
Kirah Strandquist, [email protected], Mena 1:00, Christian Smetana, [email protected], Mahboobin 10:00
Abstract—Substantial quantities of freshwater are exhausted
by the oil and gas industry in the process of hydraulic
fracturing (fracking). This water is returned as wastewater
known as flowback which standard purification methods
cannot be used to recycle, thus, currently resulting in a
environmentally and potentially economically unsustainable
situation.
Via their recently developed Electro Water Separation
(EWS) technology, OriginClear, Incorporated provides an
innovative process to treat this wastewater. EWS is a
technology which combines three separate purification
processes: electrocoagulation (EC), electro-flotation (EF)
and advanced oxidation (AOx). These separate processes
collaboratively remove suspended solids and contaminants
from wastewater. In total, EWS presents an effective means to
treat the voluminous amount of flowback produced by
fracking.
The task of addressing the lack of effective recycling
capability for flowback and the general scarcity of fresh
water -- an extremely relevant issue to society -- falls to
current and future engineers, as well as conscientious
citizens to investigate. More so, ensuring the economic and
environmental sustainability of fracking is of additional
significance. Therefore this paper will examine the
effectiveness of EWS and its applications as well as address
the technology's relation to sustainable practices.
To explain, fracking is a process used in oil and gas well
drilling has become increasingly prevalent over the course of
several decades. To extract the desired resources, fracking
involves injecting a solution, known as fracking fluid, into an
already drilled well under high pressure. This fracking fluid
consists of “[ninety] percent water, less than [ten] percent
sand, and [one-half to two] percent chemical additives.” The
pressurized solution then fractures and creates fissures in
subterranean rock, typically shale, which releases either the
gas or the oil which was previously trapped within the rock
itself [1].
The typical fracking process requires between two million
to five million gallons of freshwater. Of these five million
gallons, typically 25% “flows back to the surface” as a toxic
mixture of the original fracking fluid and subterranean
sediment. The aforementioned toxic mixture is the substance
that is referred to as flowback water [1]. To briefly illustrate
what exactly flowback water is and why it is harmful, it has
been described as so saline that it is highly toxic to the
surrounding ecosystem, including any plants and aquatic life.
As well, the solution contains high levels of such as arsenic
and the radioactive element Radium [2]. In short, fracking
flowback water is unsuitable for both disposal back into the
environment and human reuse.
Keywords—advanced oxidation, electrocoagulation,
electroflotation, flowback, fracking, sustainability of fracking
water treatment, wastewater.
To provide a brief definition, sustainability can be
understood as maintaining “long-term viability” in both the
environmental, economic, and humanistic sense. The problem
of fracking wastewater is one which negatively impacts this
long-term viability. Foremost, freshwater exists as the most
important environmental resource. The ecosystems of
virtually all plants and animals depend on its abundance, and
it is no exaggeration to say that the depletion of freshwater
has the potential to destroy large parts of the environment [3].
Therefore, it can be seen as an immense and arguably
unsustainable problem when substantial quantities of
freshwater are lost in the form of fracking wastewater.
Secondly, fracking wastewater presents a potentially
economically unsustainable issue. As progressively more
freshwater is consumed and more wastewater is produced, the
cost of freshwater is likely to rise. An article from The
Guardian explains that the rising cost of freshwater caused
FRACKING WASTEWATER
Fracking and Flowback
Although industrially produced wastewater from a
plethora of areas including the oil and gas industry has
presented a historically persistent environmental problem, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency explains that
“in recent years” the now increased prevalence of hydraulic
fracturing, or fracking, has “changed the profile of oil and
gas” wastewaters. In short, the problem of wastewater, how
to contain it, how to dispose of it, and how to recycle it, has
become substantially worse.
University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering 1
03.31.2017
Sustainability
Christian Smetana
Kirah Strandquist
by fracking could render fracking itself too expensive and
thus economically unfeasible in the future [4].
Lastly, the impact to humans which fracking wastewater
has must be examined. Most obviously, in order to maintain
drinking supplies a sustainable freshwater supply is needed.
However, equally important is understanding that growing
crops and raising livestock, i.e. producing food, equally
depends on maintaining an abundant water supply. An article
from Forbes cites increased freshwater prices as a main cause
of increased food prices [5]. Therefore, the mass conversion
of freshwater to wastewater resulting from fracking
negatively impacts the sustainability of human well-being by
threatening increased food and drinking water costs.
Ineffective Methods of Handling Flowback Water
Regarding the relevance of Electro Water Separation, for
the majority of its existence the oil and gas industry
employed two largely unsuitable methods of dealing with
flowback water. Foremost, in theory, flowback water can be
treated in the same standard water treatment plants where
sewage and other wastewaters are recycled, and many oil
and gas companies have treated flowback water in such
facilities. However, treatment of flowback water at normal
facilities such as municipal and commercial water treatment
plants is generally ineffective. To demonstrate, an article
from Chemical and Engineering News reports that suspended
solids and other contaminants “linked to cancer and nervous
system problems [...] remain after the [flowback] water goes
through commercial or municipal wastewater treatment” [7].
Stated simply, standard water treatment and standard
technology are not capable of recycling the flowback water
produced by fracking. In response to this, the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection has disadvised
fracking companies from sending flowback water to
municipal treatment plants, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency intends to outright ban this practice, and
few if any oil and gas companies still treat flowback water at
regular plans [8].
As a second method of handling flowback water, oil and
gas companies collect the wastewater and inject it back into
the ground by means of specially drilled, deep disposal wells.
Although this method seemingly removes the issues
encountered when attempting to treat and recycle flowback
water, it in turn creates another substantial issue in the form
of earthquakes. To explain, despite the fact that increased
seismic activity and earthquakes are often attributed to the
entire process of fracking in general, the head of the National
Seismic Hazard Project of the US Geological Survey states
that in actuality these earthquakes are “primarily triggered by
the disposal of wastewater into deep wells.” This is because
injecting quantities of flowback water on order of millions of
gallons into the ground greatly disturbs the subterranean
pressure. This in turns forces rock to shift which triggers
earthquakes including the 2014 4.9 and 5.8 magnitude
earthquakes which struck Kansas and Oklahoma, the largest
in the history of the two respective states [9][10].
Electro Water Separation
A potential means to rectify the problem of fracking
flowback water and provide a pro-sustainability solution
exists in Electro Water Separation, a process newly
developed by OriginClear, Incorporated and which began
testing in 2013. Electro Water Separation consists of the
combination of three separate technologies which work in
series to purify wastewater, specifically flowback water in the
case of fracking, so that it can be safely recycled and reused
[6]
To provide a brief outline of the process, the first
technology of the triad, electrocoagulation (EC), is a method
in which electric charge is used to coagulate small, suspended
solids. Suspended solids consists of various types,
colloquially referred to as contaminants, into larger bits that
can be more easily removed. Secondly, electro-flotation (EF)
consists of electrochemically producing gases which
effectively “bubble” additional contaminants to the surface of
the water, again allowing for less difficult removal. Lastly,
advanced oxidation (AOx) precipitates remaining micron
sized contaminants that could not be removed by the previous
two technologies. The removal requires generating an
abundance of reactive oxygen species by causing the micro
sized contaminants to sink to the bottom of the water. This,
again, allows for less intensive removal. Overall, OriginClear
contends the three technologies in combination remove
around 99% of contaminants present in fracking flowback
water [6].
The result is the water is now available for reuse [6].
Most likely, the former wastewater, although arguably safe
for human usage or environmental disposal, would be reused
to perform additional fracking operations. By repeatedly
recycling and reusing the same freshwater, the oil and gas
industry consumes less water than it otherwise would. The
net result is less water consumption and in all regards a
accordingly more sustainable situation.
Freshwater Shortages and Droughts
It must also be noted that the general lack of a proper
treatment method for flowback water produced in fracking is
not the sole problem in and of itself. The effects of having
immense quantities of once pure freshwater that is not being
recycled properly or being simply disposed of can be seen as
much greater when examined in the context of sustainability.
To explain, there is a finite supply of available freshwater,
and fracking is a large draw on it. In light of prevalent
drought conditions and the corresponding freshwater
NECESSITY OF A NEW FLOWBACK
WATER TREATMENT METHOD
2
Christian Smetana
Kirah Strandquist
shortages associated with them, ensuring a sustainable
freshwater supply for both environmental preservation and
human consumption is an incredibly important consideration.
To illustrate this importance, The New York Times documents
the seemingly “unending drought” which afflicted 97% of the
state of California from 2012-2016. As a result of the
drought, residents were forced to reduce water consumption
by 25%, food prices rose due to the increased price of water,
and lakes and streams, the ecosystems of various plants and
animals, dried [11].
Of course, during this same period of drought, Reuters
reports that between 70 and 100 million gallons of water,
which would equate to at minimum 25 million gallons of
flowback water, were used in fracking each individual year
and largely not recycled afterwards [12]. In part, the
wastewater which would ideally be recycled and provide
some relief to the water shortage was not due to less efficient
purification technologies. Clearly, any preservation or
recovery of freshwater is a pressing need, and for fracking to
be environmentally and humanistically sustainable, the
flowback needs to be recycled.
importance. A practical and relevant solution can potentially
be found in OriginClear’s Electro Water Separation.
ELECTRO WATER SEPARATION
A Method to Treat Wastewater Produced by the Oil and
Gas Industry
Electro Water Separation poses a plausible solution to
many of the problems we face in the process of purifying
wastewater. OriginClear, producer of this method, created
Electro Water Separation in hopes of being able to combat
the most difficult types of water purification, including
removing micron sized contaminants and carcinogens in
different situations of water purification need [6]. The
removal of such contaminants is crucial for the water to either
be put back into circulation or be reused for lessened
environmental impact. EWS is a system of purifying
wastewater which combines three major components which
each serve a different role. These components include
electrocoagulation, electro-flotation and advanced oxidation.
Together, electrocoagulation and electro-flotation remove
most of the larger contaminants, while advanced oxidation
removes smaller, micron sized contaminants and unwanted
nutrients from the water [6].
Economic Sustainability
As progressively more freshwater is consumed by the oil
and gas industry for fracking, the price of freshwater is
obviously increased. It is this decrease in freshwater supplies
and increase in freshwater prices that fracking causes that
could make fracking itself economically unsustainable. Per a
fracking industry expert, “where water is in short supply there
may not be enough available from public water supplies or
the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic
fracturing” [13]. In short, there simply may not be enough
water available at an affordable cost for fracking to be
feasible. Demonstrating that this mass water depletion can
and will occur, several towns in Texas have in fact
completely run out of water available for fracking [14].
Furthermore, a report from the Global Resources Institute
explains precisely how significant this threat to fracking is.
They explain that “[thirty-eight] percent of shale resources
are in areas that are either arid or under high to extremely
high levels of water stress.” More so, as time progresses, oil
and gas companies “are likely to face serious challenges to
accessing freshwater” [15]. Meaning, if current trends
continue, if oil and gas companies continue to convert mass
quantities of freshwater to flowback, fracking cannot remain
economically sustainable.
Electrocoagulation and Electro-flotation
In joint effort, electrocoagulation and electro-flotation are
coupled to remove larger particles and oil from contaminated
water. Electrocoagulation is a treatment process in which
larger solids are formed by the use of potential difference and
electric charge. Electro-flotation is the process of utilizing the
hydrogen gas left behind on plates that create a potential
difference for electrocoagulation to lift larger contaminants to
the surface of the water. Contaminants best removed by these
processes may include substances such as total suspended
solids (TSS), heavy metals, and emulsified oils [16].
Logically, these methods are the first step in Electro Water
Separation to rid the water of larger particles and solids
before removal of smaller nutrients and micron sized
suspended solids.
Electrocoagulation centralizes around the idea of the
electrolysis of water to get rid of contaminants. To create the
electrolysis, two oppositely charged plates (an anode and
cathode) must be used to create an electric potential across
the water between the two plates. Often this potential
difference is kept in a lower range of 5-20 V [16]. The setup,
seen in figure 1, must consist of metal plates arranged in pairs
of anodes and cathodes (illustrated in Figure 1) along with a
power source to create the potential difference. The pairs of
plates are used to form large grids of alternating anode and
cathode plates, which are then placed across the base of a
water tank containing wastewater to be treated [16].
Electro Water Separation as a Solution
Flowback water cannot be effectively recycled via
conventional technology due to injection wells which are
both wasteful and produce earthquakes. In addition, recurrent
drought condition and freshwater shortages require that
wastewater be recycled. A relevant solution to these technical
and societal problems related to flowback water is of high
3
Christian Smetana
Kirah Strandquist
FIGURE 1 [17]
Basic Electrocoagulation Cell
FIGURE 2 [19]
Interaction of Gas Bubbles and Oil Droplets in electroflotation
Shown in the figure is the construction of a single
electrocoagulation cell. The anode and cathode plates are
visible. The entire electrocoagulation process involves
several of these cells.
.
The anode plates release a metal ion into the water due to
the power supply, making them positively charged.
Simultaneously, water hydrolyzes on the cathode plate to
form hydrogen gas and hydroxyl groups [18]. The cathodes,
now negatively charged, are now oxidized and have fewer
electrons. The lost electrons from the cathode plate flow
through the water between the two plates and stabilize
surface charges on emulsified oils and suspended solids that
are encountered between the anode and the cathode. Along
with these newly stabilized particles, the metal ion that was
released starts to form molecules with the hydroxyl groups.
These molecules may also attract and contain other
contaminants along the way. This is the coagulation portion
of electrocoagulation, since particles are pulled out of the
water to form larger molecules [18].
After the larger particles from electrocoagulation are
formed, the process of electro-flotation begins. Hydrogen gas
left on the surface of the cathode from electrocoagulation
begins to break off in small bubbles. The gas puts an upward
pressure
on
the
larger
molecules
created
in
electrocoagulation. The effects of these bubbles pushing up
on the molecules is visible at the bottom of the tank where
clouds form containing the larger contaminants, total
suspended solids, emulsified oils and the hydrogen gas
bubbles. This large cloud then rises to the top of the tank, and
can be removed, or separated, from the surface of the water
[6]. Figure 2 illustrates this bubbling process in the case of oil
particles.
Illustrated is the interaction of gas bubbles organic matter
(oil particles). The gaseous bubbles are able to lift the micron
sized particles to the water’s surface.
Advantages of electrocoagulation and electro-flotation
include its efficiency and safety. The electrode grids used can
cover large surface areas of the tank for maximum
electrolysis and quicker results [10]. The process of electroflotation can attain uniform mixing between wastewater and
hydrogen gas by the large amounts of bubbles that are able to
be produced with minimum turbulence. The pairing of
electrocoagulation and electro-flotation is efficient in terms
that it decreases the need for chemical induced treatment of
the water. Decreasing the dependence on chemicals for
treatment reduces the overall cost of Electro Water
Separation. Compared to other types of chemical treatments
of water, the process of electrocoagulation and electroflotation is also relatively safe and nonreactive.
Electrocoagulation requires only low amounts of potential
difference to achieve water filtration of larger molecules [18].
To have optimal efficiency, however, many different
variables have to be met. This is where potential problems
could arise. Parameters that need to be taken into account
include pH, current density, flotation time, ionic strength,
temperature, type of metal plates used and configuration of
the metal plates. Different kinds of metals could vastly
change the overall cost. The process of electro separation also
needs monitors to check pH values and current density to
ensure that they stay in the optimal range [16].
Advanced Oxidation
The final stage in the water treatment method of Electro
Water Separation is a process known as advanced oxidation.
4
Christian Smetana
Kirah Strandquist
This stage, arguably the most intensive of the three, is crucial
for removing the final contaminants of the water. Advanced
oxidation is intensive in the fact that it is broken into two
small stages to remove smaller contaminants. The goal and
target of the process is to precipitate micron-sized suspended
solids contaminants to the bottom of the tank for removal.
With this final stage, the water will be prepared for reuse
[20].
Within the overall process of advanced oxidation there are
two smaller procedures that take place. Initially, there has to
be the formation of strong oxidants. Following the formation
of these molecules, reactions with organic contaminants
occur so that they can precipitate out to be filtered [20]. The
initial stage of advanced oxidation begins with the creation of
oxidants. Depending of which contaminants are present and
their concentrations, these oxidants may include fluorine,
hydroxyl radicals, ozone and chlorine. To form these
oxidants, a transfer of electrons must occur from an electron
donor so that there are unpaired electrons present. The
unpaired electrons make the molecule highly reactive. This
property is utilized in the removal of final organic water
contaminants.
In general, hydroxyl radicals are the most useful in the
advanced oxidation process. In regards to water treatment, the
most practical use for hydroxyl radicals includes reactions
with ozone, hydrogen peroxide or UV light. After the
hydroxyl radicals are produced they begin to bond with
contaminants in the water, which precipitate to the bottom of
the tank. These reactions are often set to occur in either a tank
or inline tubes.
Advantages to advanced oxidation include cheap
installation, removal of toxic organic chemicals and that it is
very efficient. It is relatively cheap and efficient, making it
adaptable to many water treatment methods. Advanced
oxidation is highly efficient in the sense that it removes
almost all organic pollutants and any toxic metal ions
remaining [20]. Not only does this process remove these
toxins, but it does so in a manner in which there is no
pollution transfer following the process.
Accompanying the efficiency of advanced oxidation is
some disadvantages. Through the process of creating
hydroxyl radicals, a large amount of energy must be used.
This can lead to relatively high operation costs over time. It is
also an emerging technology, so a considerable amount of
research still has to be done. Research required to improve
advanced oxidation may also be costly, considering the
experts and technology needed [12].
flowback water must be understood. This would allow us to
determine if the technology actually removes the suspended
solids and contaminants which are in reality present in the
flowback water. Furthermore, comparisons of the
effectiveness will allow a analysis of EWS in regards to its
practicality and cost effectiveness. Reports of flowback
samples show the samples contained salts and metals as well
as suspended sediment and suspended organic matter all in
high concentration, as well as several other toxins in lower
concentration [21].
To illustrate in more detail, firstly, constituting the main
and most significant contaminant in flowback water are salts,
present in the extremely high concentration of 22,500 mg/L.
Water of such extreme briny nature is harmful to life. Key
salt component elements found in the flowback water which
would require removal in order for the water to be safe for
both humans and the general environment are calcium,
magnesium, potassium, and sodium [21].
Secondly, metals are present in flowback water at a
concentration of around 80 mg/L. The metal composition in
the water is mostly iron. The presence of iron, although not
harmful to life, could render the water not usable for
industrial and commercial applications which often depend
on their freshwater being essentially pure. To explain, iron
can scale, or coat, the surfaces of industrial apparatuses
rendering them to some degree essentially damaged.
Therefore, iron would ideally also be removed [21].
Next, suspended organic matter is present at around at
590 mg/L. This organic matter is mainly composed of various
oily substances and volatile organic compounds such as
acetone, each of which would necessitate removal in order for
the water to be recycled [21].
Lastly, it should be noted that in low concentration
carcinogens such as arsenic are present in flowback as well as
radioactive rubidium [21].
Effectiveness of Electrocoagulation
Overall, electrocoagulation is an effective approach for
different types of contaminated water. The process has
received attention recently due to the high efficiency in
dealing with a range of pollutants, both organic and
inorganic, known to be more difficult to remove. More so, the
electrocoagulation process “is easily operated due to the
simplicity of its equipment” and that “complete automation of
the process is possible” [22].
To provide more specifics, electrocoagulation is relatively
effective in removing two of the salt component elements
found in flowback water, calcium and magnesium. The
optimum removal efficiency of calcium was 90% while the
optimum removal efficiency of magnesium was 70% [14]. A
separate report from the Egyptian Journal of Petroleum
examines electrocoagulation’s ability to remove sodium. The
report shows that sodium can be removed to around 90%
efficiency [23] Concerning the other contaminants present in
TECHNICAL EFFECTIVENESS OF
ELECTRO WATER SEPARATION
Specific Composition of Flowback Water
In order to analyze the effectiveness and efficiency of
Electro Water Separation, the precise composition of
5
Christian Smetana
Kirah Strandquist
flowback water, electrocoagulation is able to remove upwards
of 94% of iron, 97% arsenic, and around 80% of organic oily
substances present in the flowback water [23].
In total, electrocoagulation effectively removes the
majority of suspended solids and contaminants from
flowback water. Nonetheless, the main deficiency of
electrocoagulation discussed is its large consumption of
electricity. As seen in Figure 3, the actual efficiency of
electrocoagulation directly depends upon its electricity
consumption. However, it is noted that this would likely only
present an issue in areas where electricity is not abundant, i.e.
generally not areas where oil and gas drilling is done.
Nevertheless, it is observed that electrocoagulation is not
effective without large electricity consumption [17].
decreases as the process continues. This is illustrated in figure
4. In essence, water being purified via electro-flotation sees
its level of contamination decline at a steady rate for roughly
ten to fifteen minutes. Meaning, the suspended solids and
organic matter are being removed. The figure shows that after
this period of time, electro-flotation ceases to be impactful.
Rather, the concentration of contaminants does not change.
This would indicate that electro-flotation is only effective to a
finite point, and there are certain contaminants which it
effectively cannot removed [17].
FIGURE 4 [16]
Contaminant concentration vs. time for electro-flotation
The graph illustrates the decreased effectiveness of electroflotation. After a period of time the contaminant
concentrations stop decreasing. Evidently, the technology is
only able to purify the water to a finite extent.
Additionally, similar to electrocoagulation, the drawback
exists in the costs of electricity. Due to of the electric nature
of the process, there is once again a relationship between
effectiveness and electricity. Consequently, electro-flotation
is more effective (and more expensive) when more electric
current is applied and less effective (and less expensive)
when less electric current is applied [27].
FIGURE 3 [23]
Efficiency of electrocoagulation vs. time for differ current
levels
The graph illustrates the increased effectiveness of
electrocoagulation when a larger amount of current is
applied. A higher current constitutes more electricity usage
and is therefore more costly.
Effectiveness of Advanced Oxidation
Effectiveness of Electro-flotation
Electrocoagulation and electro-flotation both remove the
majority of suspended solids, and organic matter
contaminants. Essentially, after completing the first two
processes, the only contaminants remaining in the flowback
water are micron sized suspended solids. These micron sized
particles are what advanced oxidation aims to remove. It is
reported by Separation and Purification Technology that
advanced oxidation is overall successful in removing all but
“the most recalcitrant micropollutant” [20].
To detail, suspended organic compounds---which
electrocoagulation and electro-flotation proved least effective
in removing---are almost entirely removed by advanced
oxidation. Greater than 90% of the remaining organic
material was removed is able to be removed by tests of
electroflotation. More so, around 85% of the other remaining
dissolved solids, largely salts and metals, are removed [27].
As reported by the journal Separation and Purification
Technology, electro-floatation has a very high efficiency in
regards to removing suspended solids and contaminants
Overall, electro-flotation has the ability to remove the vast
majority of suspended solids and contaminants [16].
Additionally, the publication explains that electroflotation removes 96% of suspended solids and 68% of
suspended organic matter. These numbers appear especially
promising when contrasted with the corresponding
effectiveness of conventional purification methods.
Conventional purification removes only 71% of suspended
solids and only 49% of suspended organic matter. In total,
electro-flotation was more effective by 25% when observed
[16].
Nevertheless, there are several drawbacks to electroflotation. Firstly, the effectiveness of electro-flotation
6
Christian Smetana
Kirah Strandquist
Lastly, the Journal of Cleaner Production published a
study analyzing the cost-effectiveness of advanced oxidation.
The study explains that advanced oxidation is an expensive
process to conduct as it requires specialty chemicals,
specialty light sources, and powerful water pumps. However,
the study does in fact finds methods by which advanced
oxidation can be cost-effective and therefore practical. For
example, they find that by establishing optimal and efficient
condition, the cost of advanced oxidation can be made “about
[two] to [nine] times less [20].
It is clear that recycling flowback is sustainable, and it can
be additionally seen that the specific technology itself,
Electro Water Separation, is as well economically feasible.
The aforementioned analysis explained that Electro Water
Separation does place a demand upon electricity in order to
function. However, “the energy cost of operating the [Electro
Water Separation] technology is estimated at $0.03 per barrel
of water treated,” which is in fact less than the average cost
of freshwater. Therefore, by utilizing Electro Water
Separation oil and gas companies would be saving money
when compared to simply using new, additional freshwater.
Therefore, the technology itself is economically sustainable
[6].
Electro Water Separation is a Solution
To conclude, it can be seen that OriginClear’s claim
regarding Electro Water Separation is largely true: the three
separate technologies when working in series can effectively
purify
fracking
flowback
water.
Each
step,
electrocoagulation, electro-flotation, and advanced oxidation,
individually does not effectively purify the flowback water.
However, when all combined the bulk of contaminants can be
seen to be removed. Although, OrginClear’s contention that
90% of contaminates are removed may be an exaggeration, it
is not a large one.
Similarly, there are monetary issues regarding Electro
Water Separation. It is expensive, but, nonetheless, it is still a
feasible, practical, and generally affordable technology.
Additional Uses Which Benefit Sustainability
Electro Water Separation is a process that shows promise
in fracking wastewater treatment. In addition to removing the
sediments, metals and organic matter, Electro Water
Separation also has the potential to remove around 90% of
the salts present [24]. This is especially relevant because salts
are often the most difficult component to separate from
wastewater efficiently. In purifying wastewater to such a high
degree, Electro Water Separation provides a sustainable
solution to the current problems of flowback by allowing for
its reuse.
As stated earlier, the immense amount of freshwater
consumed by fracking renders the process potentially
unsustainable as it regards the environment, humans, and
economics. By reducing the aggregate amount of freshwater
needed for fracking, Electro Water Separation counters this
sustainability issue. More so, The Guardian cites a fracking
industry experts who explains that “recycling and reuse of
treated flowback” is a promising solution to address the water
shortages impacting fracking’s long-term viability as its
reduces the dependency on freshwater sources [4].
In addition, OriginClear claims there are other practical
uses for Electro Water Separation. The two applications they
advertise use for includes the purification of industry water
and potential application of the separation of algae from
water. Examination of the technologies and systems Electro
Water Separation has in place allows assessment of these
possible applications [6].
In regards to industry water, the problem faced is the
disposal of contaminated water into larger bodies of water. If
most, if not all contaminates could be removed, there will be
a lower effect of the harmful toxins on the surrounding
ecosystem. there could be a variety of contaminants in the
wastewater produced. However, depending on the type of
industry or plant, there could be a variety of contaminants in
the wastewater produced. Electrocoagulation combined with
electro-flotation should be able to remove a majority of larger
molecules including any emulsified oils in the wastewater
produced in industry [6]. The Electro Water Separation
would be efficient in decreasing the effect of contaminated
water on the surrounding ecosystems, but without knowing
the specific contaminants in the industry it is difficult to
assess the degree to which Electro Water Separation would
be effective.
Water contaminated with algae poses as a toxic living
environment for the ecosystem and as a health hazard for any
human contact [28]. Algal blooms occur in warm areas when
there are excessive nutrients in the water such as phosphorus
and nitrogen. The water then becomes contaminated with
various neurotoxins, dermatoxins and mats of algae. The
Electro Water Separation system in this case would be able to
filter out any larger algae molecules through
electrocoagulation and electroflotation that were not already
at the surface. Advanced oxidation would be able to
precipitate any surplus of nutrients in the water that cause the
algal blooms. Additional research would have to be done to
find out if Electro Water Separation could remove the
specific toxins from the water, since it depends heavily on the
pH and flotation time [29].
Economic Sustainability of Electro Water Separation
AN EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS EXISTS
IMPACT AND APPLICATIONS OF
ELECTRO WATER SEPARATION
Fracking and Sustainability
7
Christian Smetana
Kirah Strandquist
[10] “It’s Official: Injection of Fracking Wastewater Caused
Kansas’ Biggest Earthquake.” Waking Times Media.
10.26.2016.
Accessed
2.15.2017
http://wakingtimesmedia.com/official-injection-frackingwastewater-caused-kansas-biggest-earthquake/
[11] I. Lovett. “California Braces for Unending Drought.”
The New York Times. 5.9.2016. Accessed 3.1.2017.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/us/california-droughtwater-restrictions-permanent.html?_r=0
[12] R. Carroll. “Exclusive: California used 70 million
gallons of water in fracking in 2014.” Reuters. 4.3.2015.
Accessed
2.22.2017
http://www.reuters.com/article/uscalifornia-drought-fracking-exclusiveidUSKBN0MU01M20150403
[13] S. Goldenberg. “Fracking is depleting water supplies in
America's driest areas, report shows.” The Guardian.
2.5.2014. Accessed 3.20.2017.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/05/frack
ing-water-america-drought-oil-gas
[14] S. Goldenberg. “A Texan tragedy: ample oil, no water.”
The
Guardian.
8.11.2013.
Accessed
3.20.2017.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/11/texas
-tragedy-ample-oil-no-water
[15] P. Reig, T. Luo. “Global Shale Gas Development:Water
Availability and Business Risks.” World Resources Institute.
09.2014.
Accessed
3.20.2017
http://www.wri.org/publication/global-shale-gasdevelopment-water-availability-business-risks
[16] G. Kyzas, K. Matis. “Electroflotation process: A
review.” Journal of Molecular Liquids. 5.17.2016. Accessed
1.24.2017.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016773221
[17] D. Moussa, M. El-Naas, M. Nasser, and M. Al-Marri. “A
comprehensive review of electrocoagulation for water
treatment: Potentials and challenges.” Journal of
Environmental Management. 1.15.2017. Accessed 2.28.2017.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030147971
6308106
6301660
[18] M. Chaplin. “Electrolysis of Water.” Electrolysis of
Water.
Accessed
2.22.2017
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/electrolysis.html
[19] A. Chunjiag, G. Huang, Y. Yao, and S. Zhao. “Emerging
usage of electrocoagulation technology for oil removal from
wastewater: A review.” Science of the Total Environment.
2.1.2017
Accessed
2.28.2017.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971
6325013
[20] C. James, E. Germain, S. Judd. “Micropollutant removal
by advanced oxidation of microfiltered secondary effluent for
water reuse.” Separation and Purification Technology.
2.26.2014.
Accessed
1.23.2017.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138358661
4001178
[21] Y. Lester, I. Ferrer, and M. Thurman. “Characterization
of hydraulic fracturing flowback water in Colorado:
EWS is an effective water filtration technique that
combines the processes of electrocoagulation, electroflotation and advanced oxidation to rid wastewater of
unwanted contaminants. The combination of these techniques
offers a promising solution to the advancement of wastewater
treatment, particularly removal of dissolved salts in fracking.
EWS provides a method in which even these salts can be
removed, an issue with many current purification systems.
Increasing the degree by which water is able to be purified
will lead to an increase in the ability to reuse water.
Consequently, freshwater may be able to be used more
efficiently in the future with the application of this
technology, making EWS a plausible method to decrease the
amount of freshwater consumed by industries and alleviating
the pressure of increasing water scarcity.
SOURCES
[1]
“Fracking.”
11.22.2016
Accessed
3.14.2017.
https://www.britannica.com/technology/fracking
[2] M. Fellet. “Formation Of Toxic Compounds During
Drinking Water Disinfection.” Chemical and Engineering
News.
7.23.2016.
Accessed
10.25.2016
http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/web/2014/09/FrackingWastewater-Encourage-Formation-Toxic.html
[3] “Sustainability.” Enculopedia Britannica. 2017 Accessed
2.7.2017. https://www.britannica.com/topic/sustainability
[4] F. Harvey. “Water Shortages May Make Fracking
Impractical.” The Guardian. 11.27.2013. Accessed 3.20.2017.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/27/wate
r-shortages-fracking-impractical-uk
[5] S. Odland. “Why Are Food Prices So High?” Forbes.
5.12.2012.
Accessed
3.20.2017.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveodland/2012/03/15/whyare-food-prices-so-high/#3f4ce2e86962
[6] “Electro Water Separation.” OriginClear. 2017. Accessed
1.10.2017. http://www.originclear.com/tech/technologies
[7] M. Fellet. “Formation Of Toxic Compounds During
Drinking Water Disinfection.” Chemical and Engineering
News.
7.23.2016.
Accessed
2.10.2017
http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/web/2014/09/FrackingWastewater-Encourage-Formation-Toxic.html
[8] J. Morrison. “Fracking Wastewater Restrictions
Proposed.” Chemical and Engineering News. Vol. 93 No. 15.
P.
15.
7.23.2016.
Accessed
2.25.2017
http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i15/Fracking-WastewaterRestrictions-Proposed.html
[9] B. Oskin. “Fracking is not the cause of quakes. The real
problem is wastewater.” The Washington Post. 2.15.2015.
Accessed
2.27.2017
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/healthscience/fracking-is-not-the-cause-of-quakes-rather-itsfrackings-wastewater/2015/04/27/e87a6e82-e9f4-11e4-aae1d642717d8afa_story.html
8
Christian Smetana
Kirah Strandquist
Implications for water treatment.” Science of the Total
Environment. Volumes 512-513. Pp. 637-644. 4.15.2015.
Accessed
2.24.2017.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971
5000583
[22] A. Elnenay, E. Nassef, G. Malash, and M. Magrid.
“Treatment
of
drilling
fluids
wastewater
by
electrocoagulation.” Egyptian Journal of Petroleum. 4.8.2016.
Accessed
2.26.2017.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S111006211
6300071
[23] M. Muruganathan, G. Raju, and S. Prabhakar.
“Separation of pollutants from tannery effluents by electro
flotation.” Separation and Purification Technology.
11.15.2004.
Accessed
3.2.2017.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138358660
400019X
[24] A. Rahmani. D. Nematollahi, K. Godini, and G Azarian.
“Continuous thickening of activated sludge by electroflotation.” Separation and Purification Technology. 4.2.2013.
Accessed
3.2.2017.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138358661
3000373
[25] G. Montes-Atenas, F. Garcia, R. Memillod-Blondin, and
S. Montes. “Effect of suspension chemistry onto voltage
drop: Application to electro-flotation.” Powder Technology.
12.1.2010.
Accessed
2.24.2017.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003259101
0003232
[26] Z. Jeirani, A. Sadehi, J. Soltan, B Roshani, and B.
Rindall. “Effectiveness of advanced oxidation processes for
the removal of manganese and organic compounds in
membrane concentrate.” Separation and Purification
Technology.
7.27.2015.
Accessed
3.1.2017.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138358661
5002890
[27] M. Mehrjouei, S. Muller, and D. Moller. “Energy
consumption of three different advanced oxidation methods
for water treatment: a cost-effectiveness study.” Journal of
Cleaner Production. 1.2013.2017. Accessed 3.1.2017
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965261
3004976
[28] “Harmful Algal Blooms.” Harmful Algal Blooms.
Accessed
2.23.2017
https://www.odh.ohio.gov/odhprograms/eh/HABs/algalbloom
s.aspx
[29] A. Chunjiag, G. Huang, Y. Yao, and S. Zhao. “Emerging
usage of electrocoagulation technology for oil removal from
wastewater: A review.” Science of the Total Environment.
2.1.2017
Accessed
2.28.2017.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971
6325013
[1] E. Lacasa, P. Canizares, C. Saez “Modelling and cost
evaluation of electro-coagulation processes for the removal of
anions from water.” Separation and Purification Technology.
4.2.2013.
Accessed
2.4.2017.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138358661
3000579
[2] “OriginOil announces CLEAN-FRAC for complete frack
water
treatment.”
5.14.2014.
Accessed
2.3.2017.
http://bakkenoilreport.com/originoil-announces-clean-fracfor-complete-frack-water-treatment/
[3] “US Drought Monitor.” United States Department of
Agriculture.
1.3.2017.
Accessed
1.11.2017.
https://www.drought.gov/drought/data-maps-tools/currentconditions
[4] X. Deng. “The kinematics mathematical model of the
impulse electro-flotation.” Advanced Materials Research.
11.6.2011.
Accessed
2.4.2017.
https://www.scientific.net/AMR.403-408.2936
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank our families for support during the
research and writing process of our paper. We would also like
to thank our peer advisor for her useful comments for
bringing the paper together.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
9