Final Report
Development of an Innovative IPR Treatment Train to Maximize
Recycled Water Recharge and Minimize Blending Requirements
Date: February 27, 2015
To:
Kira Alonzo, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
From: Fredrick W. Gerringer, D.Env., P.E., BCEE
Subject:
1
Final Report for Foundational Actions Funding Program Agreement No. 139824:
Development of an Innovative IPR Treatment Train to Maximize Recycled Water
Recharge and Minimize Blending Requirements
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This project investigated the efficacy of using ozonation, biofiltration and soil aquifer treatment
(SAT) on a nitrified and partially denitrified wastewater effluent for indirect potable reuse
treatment. Treatment was optimized for maximum total organic carbon (TOC) removal to
facilitate compliance with California’s groundwater recharge regulations limiting the TOC of
wastewater origin in groundwater to 0.5 mg/L. Testing included granular activated carbon
(GAC) and anthracite coal filter media, transferred ozone dose and TOC concentration
(O3:TOC) ratios of 0.75 to 1.50, empty-bed contact times (EBCT) of 10 to 39 minutes for
biofiltration and hydraulic retention times (HRTs) of 28 days and 56 days for SAT. This project
also investigated the impact of this treatment train on other water quality parameters, such as
bromate, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), trace organic chemicals (TOrCs) and total coliform
bacteria. This comprehensive study defined the limits of TOC reduction achievable by the full
treatment train of ozonation, biofiltration and SAT while identifying other water quality and
operational factors important to the full-scale implementation of this treatment train. Optimal
operating conditions of an ozone system with an O3:TOC ratio of 1.00, a biological activated
carbon (BAC) filter with an EBCT of 39 min, and SAT with a minimum HRT of 56 days were able
to reduce the TOC concentration by 79%, which would significantly reduce the blend water
required for compliance with the TOC requirement of the groundwater recharge regulations.
Additionally, sequential addition of chlorine and ammonia in the ozone influent was shown to
minimize bromate formation, NDMA and total coliform concentrations after SAT were below the
detection limit, and significant TOrC removal was provided by this treatment train. The most
important next step before considering implementation of the tested treatment train would be to
perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine if the capital, operations and maintenance costs
associated with treatment would be offset by cost savings from the purchase of blend water and
by improving water supply reliability.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
1
2
INTRODUCTION
Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District is investigating options for using recycled
water for groundwater recharge. The objective of this project is to optimize the indirect potable
reuse treatment of a nitrified and partially denitrified secondary effluent using ozonation,
biofiltration, and SAT. The primary driver for this optimization is the California groundwater
recharge regulation that limits the municipal wastewater contribution to no greater than 0.5 mg/L
of TOC over a 20-week running average. Satisfying this regulation with reclaimed water that
has a TOC concentration higher than 0.5 mg/L requires blending with other water sources, such
as storm water or imported water. Minimizing the TOC content of the water through the
optimization of ozonation, biofiltration and SAT will reduce the blending needed to comply with
the wastewater TOC limit. This achievement would lower the costs associated with purchasing
water for blending with recycled water and would effectively increase the amount of water
available for groundwater recharge.
2.1
Participating Entities and Roles
The following list provides the entities participating in the project and their respective roles:
2.2

Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District: Project sponsor.

Trussell Technologies, Inc.: Conducted pilot testing and analyzed results.

Stetson Engineers, Inc.: Provided project management support.
Experimental Approach
The pilot plant was located at Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts’ (LACSD’s) San Jose
Creek Water Reclamation Plant (SJCWRP) near Whittier, California (Figure 1). This study used
a WEDECO advanced oxidation process (AOP) pilot unit for ozonation, a Leopold filter pilot and
an Intuitech filter pilot for biofiltration, and Trussell Technologies soil columns for SAT.
Additional details regarding the pilot plant feed water and the pilot equipment are discussed
below.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
2
Figure 1. San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant in Whittier, CA.
2.2.1
Feed Water
SJCWRP has two sides, east and west, that treat municipal wastewater separately using
primary treatment, secondary treatment with nitrification and denitrification, and tertiary
treatment with filtration and disinfection with free chlorine and chloramine. SJCWRP West
provided unfiltered secondary effluent for this study.
The first two months of startup overlapped with a WateReuse Research Foundation (WRRF)
project entitled, “Equivalency of Advanced Treatment Trains for Potable Reuse.” In April and
May of 2014, microfiltration (MF) treated the secondary effluent before ozonation and
biofiltration. MF significantly reduced turbidity but only reduced TOC and ultraviolet light
absorbance at 254 nm (UVA) by approximately 15%. These changes to water quality were
expected to have a minimal effect on biofiltration data and little impact of the study results since
the MF pilot unit was removed from the treatment train at the end of May 2014 and Test 1 did
not begin until three weeks later.
2.2.2
Pilot Equipment
This project used a WEDECO AOP pilot unit, a Leopold biofiltration pilot unit, an Intuitech
biofiltration pilot unit, and two of Trussell Technologies’ soil columns. The WEDECO and
Leopold pilot units were operating since June 2013 as part of a WRRF pilot study of direct
potable reuse. The WRRF project required treatment by the Econity MF pilot unit before
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
3
ozonation until the end of May. After May, the MF pilot unit was no longer part of this treatment
train. The soil columns were operating since August 2013 using ozonated secondary effluent.
However, the water source for the soil columns was changed to ozone and biofiltration effluent
to suit the needs of this project. More details about the pilot equipment are provided below.
2.2.3
WEDECO AOP Pilot Unit
Ozone was generated using a WEDECO AOP pilot unit (Charlotte, NC), housed inside a
shipping container (Figure 2). This pilot unit included an oxygen generator, ozone generator, ,
two different ozone dissolution systems (side stream injection and direct gas injection with plug
flow reactor), ozone destruct system, ultraviolet light (UV) reactor, hydrogen peroxide chemical
feed system for advanced oxidation with ozone or UV, and respective instrumentation and
controls. The ozone generator had a capacity of 3.2 lbs/day. The maximum applied ozone
dose for the side stream ozone system was 13 mg/L for a water flow of 20 gpm. A series of
contactors after the side stream injector provided 35 gallons of residence volume, or 2 minutes
and 20 seconds of HRT at a flow of 15 gpm.
Figure 2. Interior of WEDECO AOP pilot unit.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
4
2.2.4
Leopold Filter Pilot Unit
Leopold (Zelienople, PA) provided a filter pilot unit with blowers, pumps, a control panel and
automatic backwashing for biofiltration (Figure 3). The single filter column, designated Filter
Column 1 (FC-1) had a cross-sectional area of 4 ft2 and contained 5 ft of used Calgon F-300
GAC from a filter that was in need of regeneration at Upper Occoquan Service Authority in
Centreville, VA. This pilot unit was operating with this GAC since June 2013 and was not
expected to have any significant adsorptive capacity remaining. A startup period was not
required for this pilot unit because it already had a mature biofilter from the ongoing WRRF
project. Online instruments included flow, head loss across the filter media, influent and effluent
turbidity, and influent and effluent dissolved oxygen. Data from these instruments were stored
in comma delimited text files for analysis. Filter backwashes could be triggered manually or
automatically based on head loss across the filter media, runtime and turbidity. The BAC filter
was also capable of performing hydraulic bumps, which resemble backwashes of short duration
that could mitigate gas binding in the filter media.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
5
Figure 3. Leopold biofiltration pilot unit.
2.2.5
Intuitech Biofiltration Pilot Unit
A pilot unit (Figure 4) consisting of four filter columns with individual feed pumps was leased
from Intuitech (Salt Lake City, UT). Each 6-inch diameter filter operated independently of the
others, although they shared the air scour and backwash systems. When in automatic mode,
backwashing was initiated on high runtime, run volume, headloss, or effluent turbidity limits
entered in the equipment process screens. Online instrumentation included flow, head loss
across the media, and effluent turbidity. Data from these instruments were stored on the pilot
unit and downloaded weekly to monitor performance.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
6
Figure 4. Intuitech biofiltration pilot unit with four filter columns.
Filter Column 2 (FC-2) and Filter Column 3 (FC-3) of the Intuitech filter pilot were filled to a
depth of 6 feet with custom municipal reactivated FILTRASORB 300 GAC (Calgon Carbon,
Pittsburgh, PA). This reactivated GAC had a lower iodine number than virgin GAC of the same
type (500 mg/g versus 900 mg/g, respectively). Therefore, it was expected to take less time to
exhaust the adsorptive capacity of the GAC. Filter Column 4 (FC-4) and Filter Column 5 (FC-5)
were filled to a depth of 6 feet with anthracite coal with an effective size of 1.0 to 1.1 mm and an
uniformity coefficient of 1.5 (George L. Throop, Pasadena, CA).
2.2.6
Soil Columns
Soil aquifer treatment were modeled using two soil columns operating in series (Figure 5) at
Trussell Technologies’ workshop in Pasadena, CA. Soil Column 1 (SC-1) had a diameter of
8 inches and Soil Column 2 (SC-2) had a diameter of 6 inches. Soil was collected from a quarry
located in the same aquifer as the spreading grounds that would be used for groundwater
recharge by Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. The soil was sieved to remove
material larger than 2 mm before it was loaded into columns that were partially filled with water.
The columns were tapped with a rubber mallet to improve compaction and release trapped air
as 10 feet of soil were added to each column by the handful.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
7
Figure 5. Soil columns in Trussell Technologies’ workshop in Pasadena, CA. SC-1 (8-inch
diameter) and SC-2 (6-inch diameter) were used in this study. Both columns contained 10 feet
of soil and were wrapped in plastic to minimize algae growth.
Effluent from the Leopold pilot unit was collected from the pilot plant at SJCWRP, transported to
the workshop, stored in a refrigerated reservoir, and pumped into the bottom of SC-1. The
effluent from the top of SC-1 was then pumped into the bottom of SC-2. Each soil column
operated in an upward flow configuration with an individual HRT of 28 days and a combined
HRT of 56 days since SC-1 fed SC-2. The flow rates for SC-1 and SC-2 was kept at
0.29 gal/day and 0.16 gal/day, respectively.
Before soil column testing started, the soil columns were flushed with effluent from the Leopold
filter pilot to remove water from a previous soil column study. Flushing was accomplished by
pumping the Leopold filter effluent into the bottom of the columns at a flow rate of 1.74 gal/day
for SC-1 and 0.96 gal/day for SC-2 for 10 days. These flow rates provided a 5-day HRT for the
columns and two volume exchanges were achieved over the 10-day flushing period.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
8
2.2.7
ECONITY MF Pilot Unit
ECONITY (Torrance, CA) provided the MF pilot unit (Figure 6), which used a pressurized PVDF
membrane module with a nominal pore size of 0.1 m and a surface area of 969 ft2 (PF-90M,
ECONITY, Torrance, CA). The MF unit operated at flux of 30 to 40 gfd. Operation of the MF
pilot included daily chemical-enhanced backwashes with a 200-mg/L chlorine solution and
monthly clean-in-place with a 1000-mg/L chlorine solution.
Figure 6. Econity MF pilot unit.
2.3
Water Quality Analyses
Pilot plant data was collected using online instrumentation and water quality grab samples.
Table 1 shows important parameters each pilot unit measured continuously. These data were
downloaded and graphed weekly to help evaluate process performance. The soil columns did
not have any online instrumentation. The collection frequency of water quality grab samples
depended on the parameter being measured and the sample location. Table 2 shows the
sampling frequency for TOC, UVA, turbidity, pH, bromide, bromate, NDMA, TOrC and total
coliform bacteria. TOC, UVA, turbidity, and total coliform bacteria were measured in Trussell
Technologies’ laboratory in Pasadena, CA. NDMA and bromate were measured because they
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
9
were potential disinfection byproducts of the ozonation of wastewater effluent, and bromide was
measured because it is a precursor in the formation of bromate. Total coliform bacteria was
measured using the membrane filtration method (SM 9222b). Eurofins Eaton Analytical
(Monrovia, CA) measured NDMA, bromate, and bromide. TOrCs, such as pharmaceuticals and
personal care products (PPCPs), artificial sweeteners, and fire retardants (Table 3), were
analyzed at LACSD’s laboratory using a modified version of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency Method 1694.
Table 1. Pilot unit parameters measured continuously by online instrumentation.
Pilot Unit
Monitoring
Location
Wedeco
Flow
Temperature
UVT
Influent
Effluent
UVT
Other
% ozone in feed gas
% ozone in off-gas
Applied ozone dose
Dissolved ozone residual
Leopold
Dissolved oxygen
Flow
Turbidity
Dissolved oxygen
Turbidity
EBCT
Head loss
Run time
Intuitech
Flow
Turbidity
Filtration rate
Head loss
Run time
Table 2. Sampling frequency for TOC, UVA, turbidity, pH, bromide, bromate, TOrC and total
coliform bacteria.
Analyte
Sample
Location
TOC
UVA
Turbidity
pH
Bromide
Bromate
TOrC
Total
Coliform
Ozone Inf
2/week
2/week
2/week
1/week
1/test
1/test
1/test
1/test
Ozone Eff
2/week
2/week
2/week
1/week
---
1/test
1/test
1/test
FC-1 Eff
2/week
2/week
2/week
1/week
---
---
---
1/test
FC-2 Eff
2/week
2/week
2/week
1/week
---
---
1/test
1/test
FC-3 Eff
2/week
2/week
2/week
1/week
---
---
1/test
1/test
FC-4 Eff
2/week
2/week
2/week
1/week
---
---
---
1/test
FC-5 Eff
2/week
2/week
2/week
1/week
---
---
---
1/test
SC-1 Eff
1/week
1/week
1/week
1/week
---
---
---
1/test
SC-2 Eff
1/week
1/week
1/week
1/week
---
---
---
1/test
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
10
Table 3. List of TOrCs analyzed by LACSD’s laboratory.
Chemical Name
4-Nonylphenol
4-tert-octylphenol
Acesulfame-K
Acetaminophen
Atenolol
Atorvastatin (Lipitor)
Azithromycin
Bisphenol A
Caffeine
Carbamazepine
Carisoprodol
DEET
Diazepam
Diclofenac
Dilantin (Phenytoin)
Erythromycin-H2O
Fipronil
Fluoxetine
Furosemide
Galaxolide
Gemfibrozil
Ibuprofen
Iohexol
Iopromide
Meprobamate
Metoprolol
Naproxen
Nonylphenol diethoxylate
Nonylphenol monoethoxylate
Octylphenol monoethoxylate
Octylphenol diethoxylate
Primidone
Propranolol
Sucralose
Sulfamethoxazole
TCEP
TCPP
TDCPP
Tonalide
Triclocarban
Triclosan
Trimethoprim
Chemical Type
PPCP
PPCP
Artificial Sweetener
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
Used in resins
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
Pesticide
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
Pesticide
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
Surfactant
PPCP
PPCP
Artificial Sweetener
PPCP
Flame Retardant
Flame Retardant
Flame Retardant
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
Method Reporting Limit (ng/L)
25
5
50
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2
10
10
50
10
10
100
10
10
10
10
25
25
25
25
10
10
40
10
10
20
20
50
10
10
10
11
2.4
Test Conditions
The pilot study was separated into 5 testing periods (Table 4). The EBCT of FC-1, which was
operating as a biofilter for the WRRF project since June 2013, was set at 19 minutes for the
entire pilot study. An EBCT of 19 minutes was used because the flow set point for the Leopold
pilot unit had to be entered in whole numbers. A flow of 8 gpm provided an EBCT of
19 minutes, which was as close as the Leopold pilot unit could get to an EBCT of 20 minutes.
FC-2 and FC-4 had EBCTs of 20 minutes, and FC-3 and FC-5 had EBCTs of 10 minutes. The
HRTs of SC-1 and SC-2 were 28 days for the duration of testing. As noted in Table 4, Test 4
was not completed because of pilot equipment failures. Bromide, bromate, NDMA, TOrC and
total coliform bacteria samples were not collected, but other general water quality samples (e.g.,
TOC, UVA and turbidity) were collected during Test 4 and are discussed in this report.
Table 4. Pilot test conditions for the ozone system, filter columns, and soil columns.
Test 41
Test 5
28-Jul
25-Aug
9-Oct
28-Jul
25-Aug
9-Oct
21-Oct
4.7
6.2
7.9
8.2
5.0
0.75
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.00
FC-1
19
19
19
19
19
19
FC-2
20
20
20
20
20
20
FC-3
10
10
10
10
10
10
FC-4
20
20
20
20
20
20
FC-5
10
10
10
10
10
10
SC-1
28
28
28
28
28
28
SC-2
28
28
28
28
28
28
Test Details
Dates
Start
End
Average Transferred
O3 Dose (mg/L)
Target O3:TOC ratio
Filter
Column
EBCT
(min)
Soil
Column
HRT (d)
1
Testing Period
Test 2
Test 3
Startup
Test 1
28-Mar
19-Jun
7-Jul
19-Jun
7-Jul
4.2
Test 4 was not completed due to time restrictions caused by pilot equipment failures.
The O3:TOC ratio was the primary variable that changed between tests. During Test 1, the
target O3:TOC ratio was 0.75, which corresponded with an average transferred ozone dose of
4.2 mg/L. At the maximum target O3:TOC ratio of 1.50 (Test 4), the transferred ozone dose
averaged 8.2 mg/L. Adjustments to the transferred ozone dose were made at least once per
week using data from TOC grab samples. At the beginning of each test, the transferred ozone
dose was adjusted to satisfy the new O3:TOC ratio based on the most recent TOC data.
During startup and Tests 1 to 4, ozone was added to either MF-filtered secondary effluent
(startup and Test 1) or secondary effluent without filtration (Tests 2, 3 and 4). The startup
period was used for the startup, commissioning and optimization of the Intuitech filter pilot and
to allow the biofilter to ripen on the reactivated GAC and anthracite coal filter media. FiveTrussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
12
gallons of effluent from FC-1 were collected every two weeks and transported to the workshop
to feed the soil columns. Water remaining in the reservoir feeding SC-1 was drained and
replaced with fresh filter effluent. Figure 7 shows the process flow diagram for the pilot plant
from startup through the end of Test 4. This configuration coupled with changes in the ozone
dose allowed for the following evaluations to be performed:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Comparison of GAC vs anthracite coal for biofiltration.
Importance of O3:TOC ratio on biofilter performance.
Effect of longer EBCT on biofiltration performance.
Comparison of 28-day HRT vs 56-day HRT for SAT after ozone and biofiltration.
Figure 7. Process flow diagram showing the configuration of the pilot plant during startup and
Tests 1 to 4. FC-1 is the filter column of the Leopold pilot unit and FC-2, FC-3, FC-4 and FC-5
are the filter columns of the Intuitech pilot unit.
The configuration of the unit processes was modified during Tests 5 to see the effect of
extended EBCTs (Figure 8). During Test 5 the ozone pilot unit was feeding ozonated
secondary effluent to FC-1. Effluent from FC-1 was then supplied to the remaining filter
columns. All filter columns operated at the same EBCTs as the previous tests.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
13
This approach allowed the simultaneous comparison of 19-minute, 29-minute and 39-minute
EBCTs for the biofilters. Effluent from FC-2, which had a total EBCT of 39 minutes, was the
water source for the soil columns. That sequence of unit processes was important to determine
the lower limit of TOC removal by biofiltration and the additional benefit of SAT when TOC was
already significantly reduced by biofiltration. Here is a complete list of the evaluations made
during Tests 5:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Comparison of GAC and anthracite coal for biofiltration.
Importance of O3:TOC ratio on biofilter performance.
Effect of extended EBCTs on water quality.
Comparison of 28-day HRT vs 56-day HRT for SAT after ozone and biofiltration.
The effect of a 39-minute EBCT on overall TOC removal.
Figure 8. Process flow diagram showing the configuration of the pilot plant during Test 5. FC-1
is the filter column of the Leopold pilot unit and FC-2, FC-3, FC-4 and FC-5 are the filter
columns of the Intuitech pilot unit.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
14
The comparison of GAC to anthracite, the evaluation of the importance of the O3:TOC ratio and
the effect of EBCT on biofilter effluent water quality was similar to Tests 1 to 3. The 28- to 56day lag in sample collection from the soil columns means soil columns samples from previous
tests were collected during Tests 5. For example, the duration of Test 3 was July 31 to
August 28. The 28-day HRT through the soil columns resulted in water from Test 3 being
collected at the SC-1 effluent during late September and at SC-2 effluent during late October.
Test 5 samples from the effluent of SC-1 were collected on November 25. Soil column
operation was extended until the end of December to permit the collection of SC-2 effluent for
Test 5 (56-day HRT).
2.5
Bromate Formation Control
Ozonation of water containing bromide can form bromate, which has a maximum contaminant
limit (MCL) of 10 g/L. During the WRRF pilot study, the bromate concentration after ozonation
exceeded the MCL with O3:TOC ratios of about 0.9. The corresponding TOC reduction by
biofiltration at an EBCT of 21-min was approximately 40%. During this study, higher O3:TOC
ratios were tested to improve TOC removal by biofiltration, which was expected to cause higher
bromate formation. The WRRF pilot study also showed bromate was not removed by BAC, and
bromate removal during SAT has not been established. Therefore, this study considered the
chloramine-ammonia method (Wert et al., 2007a) as a possible approach to minimize bromate
formation during ozonation. The chlorine-ammonia method adds free chlorine to oxidize
bromide to bromine, and then adds ammonia to transform bromine into bromamine. Bromamine
effectively sequesters the bromide because bromamine does not react with ozone to form
bromate (MWH, 2005; Wert et al., 2007a).
The chlorine-ammonia method was evaluated using the same configuration as Test 5. Ozone
concentration was adjusted to have a minimum ozone concentration-time (Ct) of 2.5 using
different chlorine and ammonia residuals (Table 5). The Ct value was chosen to meet the
requirement for 1.0-log Crypto inactivation credit as listed in the US EPA table for ozone
disinfection (US EPA, 2010). Sodium hypochlorite was added 30 seconds upstream of the
ammonia injection point, which was added as ammonium sulfate. The reaction between
ammonia and bromine is very fast and was facilitated by a static mixer located before the side
stream for ozone injection (Figure 9).
Table 5. Test conditions for the chlorine-ammonia method of bromate formation control.
Cl2-NH3
Experiment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Target O3 Ct
(min-mg/L)
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Cl2 residual
(mg/L)
0
0
1
1
2
2
4
4
8
8
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
NH3-N residual
(mg/L)
0
0.5
0
0.7
0
0.9
0
1.3
0
2.1
15
O3
NH4
Pump NaOCl Sample Inlet Pump Mixer Mixer Figure 9. Process flow diagram of the WEDECO AOP pilot unit showing chlorine and ammonia
injection points.
Chlorine residuals were measured after the pump located right after chlorine injection point,
using the Hach DPD free chlorine reagent powder pillow kit (Hach method 8021). Ammonia
residuals were measured after the static mixer before ozone injection using the Hach AmVer™
Salicylate Test 'N Tube™ kit (Hach method 10023). When the desired chlorine and ammonia
residuals were achieved, influent samples were collected. After 4-5 minutes, effluent samples
were collected to account for the residence time in the ozone system. Table 6 shows all the
parameters measured during chlorine-ammonia testing.
Table 6. Parameters measured from the ozone influent before any chemical addition and the
effluent of the ozone contactors during chlorine-ammonia testing.
Bromide
Cl2-NH3
Experiment
Inf
1
2
Eff
Bromate
TOC
Inf
Eff
Inf
Eff
Inf














3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10
NDMA

Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA

Eff
O3 Ct












16
3
COST SUMMARY
Table 7 compares the original budget in the Agreement with the actual expenses for each task
through January 31, 2015 (including costs incurred by Stetson Engineers). Other than two tests
that were not completed during Task 4 (see Section 4 for more details), the tasks were
completed successfully. Task 5 is still ongoing and will be finished during the first quarter of
2016. To date, Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District has been reimbursed by the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for eligible costs incurred during 2014 quarter
one and quarter two.
Table 7. Original budget vs actual expenses by task, including the amount remaining for each
task and the project as of January 31, 2015.
Original
Budget
Actual Expenses
Amount
Remaining
Task No.
Task Name
1
Comprehensive Literature
Review
$10,000.00
$9,969.95
$30.05
2
Development of a Test
Plan
$16,000.00
$15,974.00
$26.00
3
Procurement of Pilot
Equipment and GAC
$108,000.00
$107,996.38
$3.62
4
Pilot Testing of O3/BAC
and Soil Columns
$136,000.00
$136,032.50
-$32.50
5
Project Management and
Reporting
$30,000.00
$29,359.80
$640.20
$300,000.00
$299,332.63
$667.37
Totals
4
SCHEDULE SUMMARY
Table 8 compares the planned schedule in the Agreement and the actual schedule highlighting
any differences that occurred. Other than Test 4 final sampling and Test 6, all the other tasks
were accomplished. Test 1 sampling was delayed because the performances of the Intuitech
filter columns were still stabilizing. Test 1 samples were collected on July 7 instead of May 23,
as initially planned. For this reason the duration of each test was reduced from 30 days to
21 days. Test 2 samples were collected on July 31 and no problems were encountered during
this testing period. Collection of Test 3 samples was delayed until August 25 due to technical
problems at the site. Test 4 samples were scheduled to be collected on September 8, but were
not collected due to time restrictions caused by pilot equipment failures that occurred during the
months of August and September. Also on September 24, a plant power outrage caused
damage to the ozone generator, which required repair by the equipment vendor. The generator
resumed operation the first week of October when Test 5 commenced. No problems were
encountered during Test 5 but testing period was shorter than initially planned, lasting only
12 days. Test 6 was not performed because the technical problems during the month of
September delayed the start of Test 5 and the budget for Task 4 only covered pilot testing
through the end of October.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
17
Table 8. Planned schedule vs actual schedule.
Task
no.
2014
2015
Notes
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Comprehensive
Literature Review
Development of a Test
Plan
Procurement of Pilot
Equipment and GAC
Pilot Testing of O 3 /BAC
and Soil Columns
1
2
3
4
2016
Task Name
Q1
No problem encountered
No problem encountered
No problem encountered
Intuitech filter columns stabilization was longer
than initially anticipated
Collection was delayed because filter columns
were stabilizing
4a
Test 1
4b
Test 2
No problem encountered
4c
Test 3
Sample collection was postponed for technical
problems at the site
4d
Test 4
4e
Test 5
4f
Test 6
Not completed because of pilot system failure
Test 5 was shorter because of pilot system
failure during Test 4
Not completed because of pilot system failure
during Test 4
Project Management
and Reporting
5
In progress
Planned schedule
Actual schedule
Not performed
5
PROJECT RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Water quality analyses included TOC, UVA and turbidity data, but only TOC data are used to
evaluate treatment train performance in this report. This approach was taken because the
California groundwater recharge regulations limit the TOC content of wastewater origin to
0.5 mg/L, making TOC the most important of these water quality parameters. However, tables
with average TOC, UVA and turbidity data are in the Appendix for reference. The average
O3:TOC ratios for each test varied slightly from the target O3:TOC ratios as shown in Table 9.
The discussion in the following sections will reference the target O3:TOC ratios.
Table 9. Target O3:TOC ratios compared to the average O3:TOC ratios for each test.
O3:TOC Ratio
Test
1
Target
0.75
Average
0.77
2
1.00
0.97
3
1.25
1.30
4
1.50
1.47
5
1.00
0.88
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
18
5.1
Comparison of GAC vs Anthracite Coal for Biofiltration (Tests 1 to 5)
One of the purposes of the pilot test was to compare GAC and anthracite filter media at different
O3:TOC ratios and the same EBCT. These comparisons evaluated TOC data using the Intuitech
filter columns with different filter media and the same EBCT: FC-2 (GAC) vs FC-4 (anthracite) at
a 20-min EBCT and FC-3 (GAC) vs FC-5 (anthracite) at a 10-min EBCT. As shown in Figure 10,
both GAC filters exceeded the performance of the anthracite filters in terms of TOC percentage
removal, with FC-2 removing approximately 45% more than FC-4 and FC-3 removing 30% more
than FC-5. The difference in performance is due to the adsorptive capacity of the GAC and its
ability to regenerate biologically compared to the anthracite filters (Thiel et al., 2006). The
results are in line with other pilot studies that compared TOC removal efficiencies in GAC and
anthracite columns. Seip (2014) found TOC removal at an EBCT of 12.7 minutes ranged from
20 and 81% in the BAC columns and an average of 0% from the biological filters with anthracite
media.
Figure 10. TOC removal during testing with FC-2, FC-3, FC-4 and FC-5. No TOC data is
shown for September 29 to October 6 because the ozone system was offline for repairs.
TOC removals during Test 5 were lower than they were during the previous tests because these
filter columns were operating downstream of FC-1, which removed an average of 33% of TOC.
Removal after FC-1 was expected to be lower because much of the easily metabolized TOC
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
19
would already be gone, leaving behind organic matter that was less susceptible to biological
treatment. A more detailed discussion of TOC removal during Test 5 is provided in Section 5.5.
5.2
Importance of O3:TOC Ratio on Biofilter Performance (Test 1 to 4)
The effect of the ozone dose was determined by monitoring changes to TOC removal by BAC
as the target O3:TOC ratio increased from 0.75 to 1.50 during the Tests 1 to 4 (Figure 11).
These data showed the O3:TOC ratio had no impact on TOC removal through FC-1. The trends
for the remaining filters indicated improved TOC removal as the ratio increased from 0.75 to
1.00. However, increases above 1.00 caused a decline in TOC removal by those filters. Ozone
residual measurements showed no evidence of an ozone residual entering any of the filters,
minimizing the possibility of an ozone residual affecting biofilter performance. These results
indicated the optimal O3:TOC ratio for maximizing TOC removal for FC-2, CF-3, FC-4 and FC-5
was approximately 1.00. It is not clear why this was different than FC-1, which had older GAC
that had been operating in another pilot study for 9 months before this project began.
Figure 11. Average TOC removal by the filter columns at different O3:TOC ratios.
5.3
Effect of EBCT on Biofiltration Performance (Tests 1 to 4)
The effect of EBCT was investigated by comparing the Intuitech filter columns with the same
filter media and different EBCT: FC-2 vs FC-3 for GAC and FC-4 vs FC-5 for anthracite
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
20
(Figure 12). Increasing EBCT from 10 to 20 minutes had little to no effect on TOC removal for
the anthracite columns. However, the same increase in EBCT increased TOC removal by BAC
about 20%. These results indicated EBCTs for anthracite filters exceeding 10 min would not be
beneficial, but higher EBCTs for BAC could achieve higher TOC removal.
Figure 12. Comparison of the average TOC removals by the columns with the same filter media
but different EBCTs.
5.4
Comparison of 28-Day HRT to 56-Day HRT for SAT after Ozone and Biofiltration
(Tests 1 to 5)
FC-1 effluent produced the water that fed the soil columns for evaluating SAT performance after
28-day and 56-day HRTs. FC-1 was chosen to feed the soil columns because it already had a
mature biofilter with exhausted GAC from 9 months of operation before this pilot study began.
SC-1 provided the first 28 days of SAT and was followed by SC-2, which provided the next
28 days of SAT. Combined, the HRT through both soil columns was 56 days. TOC removal
during Test 2 could not be calculated because a sampling error did not allow the measurement
of the influent TOC for SC-1. As shown on Figure 13, SC-1 removed an average of 48% of TOC
during Test 1 and 35% of TOC during Tests 3, 4 and 5. TOC removal by SC-2 was initially low
(6% in Test 1) but gradually increased to 26% in Test 5. These results suggest there was a
maturation process occurring as the microorganisms in SC-2 adjusted to the quality of the water
it was receiving. The decline of TOC removal by SC-1 from Tests 1 to 3 also left relatively more
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
21
TOC for SC-2 to remove, which could account for the increased percent removal by SC-2 during
later tests. In spite of the increasing TOC removal by SC-2, most of the TOC removal occurred
in SC-1, which is consistent with research showing SAT achieved most of its TOC reduction
within days rather than weeks (Rauch-Williams et al., 2010; Drewes and Fox, 1999; Fox et al.,
2006).
Figure 13. TOC reduction by the soil columns during Tests 1, 3, 4 and 5.
While TOC removal by SC-1 and SC-2 varied between these tests as described above, the
overall removal after a 56-day HRT ranged from 50 to 60%. Tests 1, 3 and 4 had target
O3:TOC ratios of 0.75, 1.25 and 1.50, respectively, and the increasing O3:TOC ratio did not
have a consistent effect on the overall TOC removal. Test 5, which had a total BAC EBCT
(39 min) that approximately doubled the BAC EBCT of the other tests (19 min), showed the best
combined TOC removal by the soil columns. This result is attributed to the improving TOC
removal by SC-2 because the performance of SC-1 did not improve during Tests 3 to 5.
5.5
The Effect of a 39-Minute EBCT on Overall TOC Removal (Test 5)
During Test 5, FC-1 and FC-2 were operated in series to produce a BAC effluent with a
combined EBCT of 39 minutes. This water was fed to the soil columns to evaluate the impact of
a longer EBCT on overall TOC removal by the treatment train of ozone, BAC and SAT. The
most relevant comparison would be Tests 2 and 5 because they operated with the same
O3:TOC ratio for the ozone system. However, there was a sampling error for the TOC
measurement of SC-1 influent during Test 2, which prevented this comparison from being
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
22
made. However, comparing Test 5 to Tests 1, 3 and 4 still permits the evaluation of the effect of
the longer EBCT on overall TOC removal.
TOC removal by the full treatment trains ranged from a low of 65% in Test 3 to a high of 78%
during Test 5 (Figure 14). TOC removal by ozonation (3 to 6%) and FC-1 (31 to 39%) was fairly
constant throughout testing. As shown in Figure 13 and discussed in Section 5.4, TOC
reduction by the soil columns varied from 50 to 60%. When combining removals for the whole
treatment train in Tests 1 to 3, TOC reduction varied from 65 to 69%. These results showed no
trend that correlated with the increase in the O3:TOC ratio from 0.75 in Test 1 to 1.50 in Test 4.
However, TOC removal during Test 5 was 78%, which was noticeably higher than the previous
tests. This better performance was attributed to the improved TOC removal by SC-2 (Figure 13)
and the additional TOC removal from the extra 20 min of EBCT provided by FC-2 (Figure 14).
TOC removal by FC-2 did not match FC-1 (26% vs. 35%) even though they had similar EBCTs
(20-min vs. 19-min), but the longer EBCT further reduced TOC without affecting the TOCremoval efficiency of the soil columns. Ultimately, that resulted in a final product TOC
concentration for Test 5 that averaged 1.4 mg/L compared to final product TOC concentrations
that ranged from 1.7 to 2.0 mg/L.
Figure 14. Total TOC removal for the complete treatment train in each test.
5.6
Disinfection byproducts (DBPs)
NDMA and bromate were ozonation DBPs measured on the last day of each testing period.
Bromide concentration in the ozone influent was also sampled because bromate forms when
ozone reacts with bromide. NDMA was measured regularly in the effluent of FC-2 and FC-3 to
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
23
evaluate the effect of EBCT on BAC removal of NDMA. Special sampling for NDMA in the
effluents of FC-1, SC-1 and SC-2 was conducted as part of Test 2 to evaluate the fate of NDMA
through the soil columns. During Test 5, NDMA was also collected from FC-1 effluent because
it was operating before FC-2 and FC-3 to test the effect of longer EBCTs on BAC performance.
5.6.1
NDMA
One of the most concerning DBPs formed during ozonation of wastewater is NDMA (Stalter et
al, 2010). NDMA has been classified by the US EPA as likely a human carcinogen (US EPA,
2008) with a cancer risk of 10-6 at 0.7 ng/L in drinking water (US EPA, 2001). The California
notification level for NDMA is 10 ng/L. The exact mechanism of NDMA formation during
ozonation is still unknown. Some studies have shown NDMA formation due to the oxidation of
dimethylamine (DMA) and dimethylsulfamide (DMS) (Andrzejewski et al., 2008; Schmidt and
Brauch, 2008; von Gunten et al., 2010).
NDMA concentrations for Tests 1, 2, 3 and 5 are shown in Figure 15, with a blue line
representing the California Division of Drinking Water (DDW) notification limit of 10 ng/L.
Figure 16 shows the percentage of NDMA removed by FC-2 (20-min EBCT) and FC-3 (10-min
EBCT) for Tests 1, 2, 3 and 5 and the percentage of NDMA removed by FC-1 (19-min EBCT)
for Tests 2 and 5.
Figure 15. NDMA concentrations in the secondary effluent, ozone effluent and BAC effluent of
FC-1, FC-2 and FC-3. The blue line shows the DDW notification limit of 10 ng/L. The
concentration in the effluents of FC-2 and FC-3 were below the detection limit for Test 5.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
24
Figure 16. NDMA percent removal by FC-2 and FC-3 during Tests 1, 2, 3 and 5 and by FC-1
during Tests 2 and 5. The maximum NDMA removal that could be demonstrated for FC-2 and
FC-3 during Test 5 was limited to 86% by the NDMA concentration in FC-1 effluent (14 ng/L)
and the detection limit (2 ng/L).
During Test 5, cumulative EBCTs after FC-1, FC-2 and FC-3 were 19 min, 39 min and 29 min,
respectively. NDMA concentrations in the secondary effluent varied from 50 to 95 ng/L, and
concentrations after ozonation increased from 40 to 300 ng/L with no linear correlation between
the O3:TOC ratio and NDMA formation (R2 = 0.01). For Test 1, the ozone effluent NDMA
concentration was 390 ng/L, and FC-2 and FC-3 removed 92% and 98% of that, respectively. In
Test 2, the ozone effluent NDMA concentration was 130 ng/L and removal by FC-1, FC-2 and
FC-3 was 38%, 70% and 61%, respectively. SC-1 treated FC-1 filtrate, removing 95% of the
remaining NDMA to lower the concentration to 4.1 ng/L after the 28-day HRT in the soil column.
After another 28 days of SAT in SC-2, the NDMA concentration was below the detection limit of
2 ng/L. The attenuation of NDMA by SAT could have significant implications regarding the
design of indirect potable reuse projects that include surface spreading for groundwater
recharge by allowing treatment facilities to rely on SAT to remove a significant amount of NDMA
from the treated water after spreading.
For Test 3, FC-2 and FC-3 reduced the NDMA concentration of 340 ng/L by 98% to 8.0 ng/L
and 6.4 ng/L, respectively. For Test 5, FC-1 reduced the ozone effluent NDMA concentration of
160 ng/L to 14 ng/L, a decrease of 91%. FC-2 and FC-3, which were operating downstream of
FC-1 to test EBCTs above 20 min, demonstrated at least 86% removal by lowering the NDMA
concentration below the 2-ng/L detection limit. These data indicated BAC has the potential to
reduce NDMA concentrations below the 10-ng/L notification limit and possibly below the
detection limit depending on the initial NDMA concentration and the EBCT for the BAC process.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
25
5.6.2
Bromate
Bromate is a potential human carcinogen with an MCL in drinking water of 10 g/L based on an
annual average (US EPA, 2011). It can form during ozonation of bromide-containing waters
through a series of reactions involving ozone and secondary oxidants such as hydroxyl and
carbonate radicals (von Gunten, 2003). Research has shown bromate formation concentration
increases with ozone dose (Wert et al., 2007b, Zimmermann et al., 2010), while formation is
influenced by several factors: low pH and lower temperature are associated with lower bromate
formation (MWH, 2005, Croue et al., 1996).
Figure 17 shows bromide concentrations in the secondary effluent and bromate concentrations
after ozonation. Previous sampling never detected bromate in the secondary effluent so its initial
concentration was assumed to be 0 µg/L. The average concentration of all bromide sampling
was about 90 µg/L. For Tests 1 and 2, the bromate concentration was below the MCL and the
O3:TOC ratios were 0.75 and 1.00, respectively. During Test 3, the O3:TOC ratio was 1.25 and
the bromate concentration of 11 µg/L exceeded the MCL. During Test 5, the bromide
concentration and the O3:TOC ratio was the same as Test 2 but bromate formation was 20 µg/L.
Concentrations exceeding 10 µg/L indicate potential compliance challenges so bromate
formation control testing by the chlorine-ammonia method was conducted
Figure 17. Bromide and bromate concentrations during Tests 1, 2, 3 and 5. The blue line
depicts the bromate MCL of 10 µg/L.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
26
5.6.3
Bromate Formation Control
The approach used for the chlorine-ammonia method to minimize bromate formation was
described in Section 2.4. Figure 18 shows bromate formation after the sequential addition of
sodium hypochlorite and ammonium sulfate at an average O3:TOC ratio of 0.94 and an average
bromide concentration of 95 µg/L. Three of the four samples with this bromate formation control
strategy had concentrations below the 10 µg/L MCL, showing the chlorine-ammonia method to
be an effective approach to limiting bromate formation in a nitrified wastewater effluent. Due to
the inconsistency of the results (i.e., high bromate with a 3 mg/L total chlorine residual),
additional study would be required to develop a larger database for determining the total
chlorine residual required to achieve sufficient bromate formation control to satisfy the bromate
MCL under expected water quality conditions.
Figure 18. Bromate formation after chlorine-ammonia addition. The green line shows the
bromate MCL of 10 µg/L.
5.7
TOrCs
Recent studies have suggested post-ozone activated carbon adsorption is effective in further
removing TOrCs and reducing toxicity attributed to ozonation (Göbel et al., 2007, Reungoat et
al., 2011, Stalter et al., 2011). TOrC monitoring during Tests 1, 2, 3 and 5 was performed before
and after ozonation and in the effluent of FC-2 and FC3. FC-1 effluent was also analyzed
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
27
during Test 5 because FC-1 treated the water before FC-2 and FC-3 to test the effect of
extended EBCTs on BAC performance. Tables 10 to 13 show TOrCs that were detected in the
ozone influent and the effluent of subsequent unit processes. TOrCs that were never detected in
the ozone influent are not listed in these tables but can be found in the Appendix in Tables A5 to
A8, which display all the results for the TOrC analyses. No Test 4 TOrC data are available
because pilot equipment problems prevented sample collection during that test. The columns
with anthracite coal (FC-4 and FC-5) were not included in this portion of the study.
Table 10. Summary of TOrCs not removed by ozonation and BAC filtration during Test 1.
O3 Influent
4-Nonylphenol
4-tert Octylphenol
Acesulfame-K
Atenolol
Azithromycin
Carbamazepine
Carisoprodol
DEET
Diclofenac
Dilantin (Phenytoin)
Erythromycin-H2O
Fipronil
Fluoxetine
Furosemide
Galaxolide
Gemfibrozil
Ibuprofen
Iohexol
Meprobamate
Metoprolol
Nonylphenol diethoxylate
Nonylphenol monoethoxylate
Octylphenol monoethoxylate
Primidone
Propranolol
Sucralose
Sulfamethoxazole
TCEP
TCPP
TDCPP
Tonalide
Triclocarban
Triclosan
Trimethoprim
FC-2 Effluent
(20-min EBCT)
FC-3 Effluent
(10-min EBCT)
Acesulfame-K
Acesulfame-K
Carisoprodol
DEET
Carisoprodol
DEET
Galaxolide
Galaxolide
Galaxolide
Iohexol
Meprobamate
Iohexol
Meprobamate
Iohexol
Meprobamate
Primidone
Primidone
Primidone
Sucralose
Sucralose
Sucralose
TCEP
TCPP
TDCPP
TCEP
TCPP
TDCPP
TCEP
TCPP
TDCPP
O3 Effluent
4-Nonylphenol
4-tert Octylphenol
Acesulfame-K
Carisoprodol
DEET
Dilantin (Phenytoin)
Fipronil
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
28
Table 11. Summary of TOrCs not removed by ozonation and BAC filtration during Test 2.
O3 Influent
O3 Effluent
FC-2 Effluent
(20-min EBCT)
4-Nonylphenol
4-Nonylphenol
4-Nonylphenol
4-tert Octylphenol
4-tert Octylphenol
Acesulfame-K
Acesulfame-K
Acesulfame-K
FC-3 Effluent
(10-min EBCT)
Acesulfame-K
Atenolol
Azithromycin
Carbamazepine
Carisoprodol
Carisoprodol
DEET
DEET
Carisoprodol
DEET
DEET
Diclofenac
Dilantin (Phenytoin)
Dilantin (Phenytoin)
Erythromycin-H2O
Fipronil
Fipronil
Fipronil
Galaxolide
Galaxolide
Fluoxetine
Furosemide
Galaxolide
Gemfibrozil
Ibuprofen
Iohexol
Iohexol
Iohexol
Iohexol
Meprobamate
Meprobamate
Meprobamate
Meprobamate
Metoprolol
Naproxen
Nonylphenol diethoxylate
Nonylphenol diethoxylate
Nonylphenol monoethoxylate
Nonylphenol monoethoxylate
Octylphenol monoethoxylate
Octylphenol monoethoxylate
Primidone
Primidone
Primidone
Primidone
Sucralose
Sucralose
Sucralose
Sucralose
Sulfamethoxazole
Sulfamethoxazole
TCEP
TCEP
TCEP
TCEP
TCPP
TCPP
TCPP
TCPP
TDCPP
TDCPP
TDCPP
TDCPP
Tonalide
Tonalide
Triclocarban
Triclocarban
Propranolol
Triclosan
Trimethoprim
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
29
Table 12. Summary of TOrCs not removed by ozonation and BAC filtration during Test 3.
O3 Influent
O3 Effluent
FC-2 Effluent
(20-min EBCT)
FC-3 Effluent
(10-min EBCT)
Acesulfame-K
Acesulfame-K
4-Nonylphenol
4-tert Octylphenol
Atenolol
Azithromycin
Carbamazepine
Carisoprodol
Carisoprodol
DEET
DEET
Carisoprodol
DEET
DEET
Diclofenac
Dilantin (Phenytoin)
Dilantin (Phenytoin)
Erythromycin-H2O
Fipronil
Fipronil
Fluoxetine
Furosemide
Galaxolide
Galaxolide
Gemfibrozil
Ibuprofen
Iohexol
Iohexol
Iohexol
Iohexol
Meprobamate
Meprobamate
Meprobamate
Meprobamate
Primidone
Primidone
Primidone
Sucralose
Sucralose
Sucralose
TCEP
TCEP
TCEP
TCEP
TCPP
TCPP
TCPP
TCPP
TDCPP
TDCPP
TDCPP
TDCPP
Metoprolol
Nonylphenol diethoxylate
Nonylphenol monoethoxylate
Octylphenol monoethoxylate
Primidone
Propranolol
Sucralose
Sulfamethoxazole
Tonalide
Triclocarban
Triclosan
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
30
Table 13. TOrC Concentrations (ng/L) measured during Test 5. EBCTs shown in the column
headings represent the total EBCT at the effluent of the filter column.
O3 Influent
O3 Effluent
4-Nonylphenol
4-Nonylphenol
FC-1 Effluent
(19-min EBCT)
FC-2 Effluent
(39-min EBCT)
FC-3 Effluent
(29-min EBCT)
4-Nonylphenol
4-tert Octylphenol
4-tert Octylphenol
Acesulfame-K
Acesulfame-K
Acesulfame-K
Acesulfame-K
Atenolol
Azithromycin
Carbamazepine
Carbamazepine
Carisoprodol
Carisoprodol
Carisoprodol
Carisoprodol
Carisoprodol
DEET
DEET
DEET
DEET
DEET
Dilantin
Dilantin
Diclofenac
Dilantin
Dilantin
Erythromycin-H2O
Fipronil
Fluoxetine
Furosemide
Galaxolide
Galaxolide
Galaxolide
Gemfibrozil
Iohexol
Iohexol
Iohexol
Iohexol
Iohexol
Meprobamate
Meprobamate
Meprobamate
Meprobamate
Meprobamate
Primidone
Primidone
Primidone
Primidone
Sucralose
Sucralose
Sucralose
Sucralose
Sulfamethoxazole
Sulfamethoxazole
Sulfamethoxazole
Metoprolol
Nonylphenol
diethoxylate
Nonylphenol
monoethoxylate
Octylphenol
monoethoxylate
Primidone
Propranolol
Sucralose
Sulfamethoxazole
TCEP
TCEP
TCEP
TCEP
TCEP
TCPP
TCPP
TCPP
TCPP
TCPP
TDCPP
TDCPP
TDCPP
TDCPP
TDCPP
Tonalide
Triclocarban
Triclosan
Trimethoprim
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
31
Tables 10 to 13 indicate ozone removed to the detection limit an average of 59% of the TOrCs
in the ozone influent. During Tests 1 to 3, FC-2 (20-min EBCT) and FC-3 (10-min EBCT)
completely removed 38% and 31%, respectively, of the TOrCs in the ozone effluent. Total
TOrC removal below the detection limit for Tests 1 to 3 was 70% for ozone and FC-2 and 67%
for ozone and FC-3. Reduction in TOrC concentrations below the detection limit was slightly
improved by higher EBCT during Tests 1 to 3, which tested EBCTs of 10 and 20 min. The same
trend was not evident during Test 5, which tested EBCTs of 19, 29 and 39 min, suggesting
complete removal of the more easily biodegradable chemicals was achieved with a 20-min
EBCT. However, an analysis of Tables A5 to A8 in the Appendix showed longer EBCTs provide
better removal of TOrCs not completely removed by ozone or BAC.
5.8
Total Coliform Bacteria
Total coliform bacteria are commonly used as an indicator of pathogenic bacteria with a
wastewater origin. This parameter was measured at every step of the treatment train to
determine its removal by ozonation, potential regrowth by biofiltration, and fate during SAT.
Total coliform concentrations are shown in Figure 19, with log removal values (LRVs) for each
unit process listed in Table 18. Positive LRVs indicate removal and negative LRVs indicate
regrowth. Ct values (mg-min/L) calculated from the ozone residuals in the contactor on the day
of total coliform sampling were 1.5 for Test 1, 0.95 for Test 2, 1.7 for Test 3 and 2.0 for Test 5.
Figure 19. Total coliform bacteria concentrations in the ozone influent and effluent of each
subsequent unit process. The concentration after SC-2 was only measured during Test 1
because the feed to SC-2 (SC-1 effluent) was always below the detection limit.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
32
Table 18. Total coliform bacteria LRV for the unit processes in each test. Positive LRVs indicate
removal and negative LRVs indicate regrowth. The LRV for SC-2 could not be calculated in
Test 1 because the concentration of total coliform bacteria after SC-1 was below the detection
limit. Measurements in SC-2 effluent were not made after Test 1 because the concentration in
the SC-1 effluent was always below the detection limit.
Test
O3 Eff
FC-1
FC-2
FC-3
FC-4
FC-5
SC-1
SC-2
1
2.01
0.53
0.04
0.04
0.07
-0.35
≥2.41
---
2
2.61
-0.90
-0.08
-0.99
-1.41
-1.41
≥4.09
NM
3
2.73
-1.11
-0.73
-1.15
-0.64
-1.04
≥3.29
NM
5
3.56
0.10
0.03
0.11
0.05
0.14
≥2.13
NM
NM = not measured
LRVs for ozone disinfection ranged from 2.01 to 3.56. After ozonation, there was approximately
1 log of regrowth of total coliform bacteria through the filters during Tests 2 and 3, but an
average of no regrowth during Test 1. Test 5, which placed FC-1 before the other filter columns,
showed small declines in total coliform bacteria concentrations through each filter. These results
show no specific pattern to the total coliform bacteria concentrations after biofiltration that could
be linked to the variables examined in this study (i.e., media type, EBCT.or O3:TOC ratio.
Notably, total coliform concentrations after SC-1 were always below the detection limit, even
with total coliform concentrations in the source water (FC-1 effluent) exceeding
104 CFU/1000 mL during Test 2. The concentration in SC-2 effluent was below the detection
limit in Test 1. In the subsequent tests, SC-2 effluent was collected but not analyzed because
the SC-1 effluent samples were always below the detection limit.
6
CONCLUSIONS
The primary objective of this project was to investigate the effect of several variables on TOC
removal by a treatment train of ozone, biofiltration and SAT that treated a nitrified and partially
denitrified secondary effluent. These variables included the O3:TOC ratio, filter media type (GAC
vs. anthracite), biofilter EBCT, and the HRT of SAT. The main driver for this optimization was
TOC minimization to reduce the amount of blend water that would be required to satisfy the
California groundwater recharge regulation that limits the municipal wastewater contribution to
no greater than 0.5 mg/L of TOC in the groundwater over a 20-week running average. Unless
treatment prior to groundwater recharge includes reverse osmosis membranes, satisfying this
requirement is typically not possible without blending with other water sources, such as storm
water runoff or imported water. However, storm water runoff is only available in California during
the raining season (typically November to April) and imported water is expensive and unreliable.
Therefore, maximizing TOC removal before accounting for blending with other source waters is
necessary to reduce the cost of this indirect potable reuse strategy.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
33
This research demonstrated biofiltration was better at TOC removal when using GAC media
than it was with anthracite media. Additionally, the average TOC removal during Tests 1 to 4
was increased from 34% to 44% when the EBCT was lengthened from 10 min to 20 min. A
longer EBCT of 39 min during Test 5 was able to increase the average TOC removal by BAC to
51%. Anthracite media did not have the same sensitivity to EBCT, with TOC removal averaging
23% and 24% at EBCTs of 10 and 20 min. Over the range of O3:TOC ratios tested during this
study (0.75 to 1.50), there was not a consistent affect on biofilter performance, regardless of
filter media type. However, the step increase from 0.75 to 1.00 did show a significant
improvement in TOC removal for all filters, whereas further increases had no effect. These
results suggested a O3:TOC ratio of 1.00 would provide optimal TOC removal. For SAT, the first
soil column (28-day HRT) reduced the TOC in the feed water by an average of 38% and the
second soil column (also 28-day HRT) reduced the TOC another 16% for a total average
removal of 55%. The overall TOC reduction by the full treatment trains of ozone, BAC (20-min
EBCT) and SAT ranged from 65 to 69%. When the EBCT of the BAC was extended to 39-min,
TOC removal by the full treatment train increased to 78%.
Other benefits of the treatment train included significant removal of TOrCs, with most of the
measured chemicals below the analytical method detection limit in the BAC effluent. While not
studied here, additional TOrC attenuation could be achieved during SAT. Ozone was
demonstrated to form significant NDMA, but BAC removed most of it and SAT further dropped
the NDMA concentration below the detection limit of 2 ng/L. Bromate formation was shown to
exceed the MCL of 10 g/L under certain circumstances, but the chlorine-ammonia method was
effective at lowering formation enough to comply with the MCL. Additionally, the treatment train
was able to remove all of the total coliform bacteria present in the source water, demonstrating
excellent disinfection capabilities.
Considering the data generated by this study, the optimal design criteria to maximize TOC
removal for a treatment train of ozone, BAC and SAT treating the secondary effluent at
SJCWRP would be an ozone system operating at an O3:TOC ratio of 1.00, a BAC filter with an
EBCT of 39 min, and SAT with a minimum HRT of 56 days. However, a cost analysis would
need to be performed to determine if an EBCT of that length would be justifiable or if a shorter
EBCT would be better.
This research demonstrated the technical feasibility of an indirect potable reuse treatment train
of ozone, BAC and SAT and developed some basic design criteria for these unit processes.
These results could be applied to reuse of wastewater effluent from SJCWRP or more generally
to other wastewater treatment facilities producing a wastewater effluent of similar quality. Pilot
testing would be recommended at other facilities to confirm treatment train performance and
optimize operations as necessary.
One important task to be performed before considering the implementation of the treatment train
tested in this study is an analysis to determine if the capital, operation and maintenance costs of
a treatment facility with the suggested design criteria would be offset by reducing the cost of
purchasing or otherwise securing the quantity of blend water necessary to satisfy the 0.5 mg/L
limit for TOC of wastewater origin required by California’s groundwater recharge regulations.
Another benefit for consideration would be improved water supply reliability since recycled water
is a local supply with a higher resistance to drought than water to Southern California from
Northern California or the Colorado River. The cost analysis should compare various source
waters and treatment options for surface spreading, including Title 22 treated water, secondary
or tertiary effluent followed by ozonation, and secondary effluent followed by ozone and BAC.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
34
All of these options would be followed by SAT, although the upstream treatment and source
water could affect the efficiency of SAT.
A policy change that could reduce blend water requirements is relaxing or eliminating the
0.5 mg/L limit for TOC of wastewater origin. This regulation is the primary driver of needing to
reduce the TOC concentration, but it does not consider whether or not the TOC resembles
organic matter in wastewater effluent. For example, ozonation alone has the ability to
significantly remove the wastewater “fingerprint” of a wastewater effluent, as demonstrated by
the excitation-emission matrix (EEM) spectra images before and after ozonation shown in
Figure 20. Convincing DDW to modify the wastewater TOC rule would likely require a significant
research effort, but those expenses would likely be offset by lower implementation costs for
indirect potable reuse by surface spreading if this regulation was changed.
Figure 20. EEM images of secondary effluent before and after ozonation. The peaks
associated with humic acids (HA), fulvic acids (FA) and proteins and soluble microbial products
(SMP) are typical of wastewater effluents and were almost entirely removed by ozonation.
7
REFERENCES
Andrzejewski, P., Kasprzyk-Hordern, B., Nawrocki, J. (2008) N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)
formation during ozonation of dimethylamine-containing waters. Water Res. 42, 863-870.
Croué J.P., Koudjonou B.K. and Legube B., Parameters Affecting the Formation of Bromate Ion
During Ozonation (1996), Ozone: Sci. & Eng. 18 (1) 1-18.
Drewes, J. E.; Fox, P. Behavior and characterization of residual organic compounds in
wastewater used for indirect potable reuse. Water Sci. Technol.1999, 40, 391-398
Fox, P.; Houston, S.; Westerhoff, P.; Nellor, M.; Yanko, W.; Baird, R.; Rincon, M.; Gully, J.; S.,
C.; Arnold, R.; Lansey, K.; Quanrud, D.; Ela, W.; Amy, G.; Reinhard, M.; Drewes, J. Advances in
Soil Aquifer Treatment Research for Sustainable Water Reuse; American Water Works
Association Research Foundation: Denver, CO, 2006.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
35
Göbel, A., McArdell, C.S., Joss, A., Siegrist, H., Giger, W., 2007. Fate of sulfonamides,
macrolides, and trimethoprim in different wastewater treatment technologies. Science of the
Total Environment 372 (2e3), 361-371.
MWH. Water Treatment: Principles and Design, 2nd Edition, Wiley, 2005.
Rauch-Williams, T.; Hoppe-Jones, C.; Drewes, J. E. The role of organic matter in the removal of
emerging trace organic chemicals during managed aquifer recharge. Water Res. 2010, 44, 449460.
Reungoat, J., Escher, B.I., Macova, M., Keller, J., 2011. Biofiltration of wastewater treatment
plant effluent: effective removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products and reduction of
toxicity. Water Res. 45 (9), 2751-2762.
Schmidt CK and Brauch HJ. (2008) N,N-dimethylsulfamide as precursor for Nnitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) formation upon ozonation and its fate during drinking water
treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008 Sep 1;42(17):6340-6.
Seip N. D. Study of Pilot-scale Filtration at Minneapolis Water Works, TVM4905 Water Supply
and Wastewater Systems, Master’s Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Department of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering, March 2014.
Stalter, D., Magdeburg, A., Weil, M., Knacker, T., Oehlmann, J., 2010. Toxication or
detoxication? In vivo toxicity assessment of ozonation as advanced wastewater treatment with
the rainbow trout. Water Res. 44, 439-448.
Stalter, D., Magdeburg, A., Wagner, M. and Oehlmann, J. (2011) Ozonation and activated
carbon treatment of sewage effluents: Removal of endocrine activity and cytotoxicity. Water
Res. 45(3), 1015-1024.
Thiel P., L. Zappia, P. Franzmann, B. Warton, M. Alessandrino, A. Heitz, P. Nolan, D. Scott, B.
Hiller, D. Masters. Activated Carbon vs Anthracite as Primary Dual Media Filters–A Pilot Plant
Study. 69th Annual Water Industry Engineers and Operators Conference Exhibition Centre –
Bendigo, September 2006 Page 8
US EPA (2001) Integrated Risk Information System
US EPA, 2008. Emerging Contaminant- N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) Fact Sheet.
US EPA 2010 Code of Federal Regulations, Protection of Environment, Title 40 Volume 22,
Chapter 1, Parts 141-143. July 1, 2010. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title40vol1/content-detail.html
US EPA, 2011, Retrieved January 2015, from
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/disinfectionbyproducts.cfm
von Gunten, U., (2003) Ozonation of drinking water: part II. Disinfection and by-product
formation in presence of bromide, iodide or chlorine. Water Res. 37 (7), 1469-1487
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
36
von Gunten, U., Salhi, E., Schmidt, C.K., Arnold, W.A. (2010) Kinetics and mechanisms of Nnitrosodimethylamine formation upon ozonation of N, N dimethylsulfamidecontaining waters:
Bromide catalysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44(15), 5762-5768.
Wert, E., J. E. Neemann, D. Johnson, D. J. Rexing, and R. E. Zegers. (2007a). Pilot-scale and
full-scale evaluation of the chlorine-ammonia process for bromate control during ozonation.
Ozone: Sci. & Eng. 29(5).
Wert E.C., Rosario-Ortiz F. L., Drury D.D. and Snyder S. A. (2007b) Formation of oxidation
byproducts from ozonation of wastewater. Water Res. 41(7), 1481-1490.
Zimmermann, S.G., Wittenwiler, M., Hollender, J., Krauss, M., Ort, C., Siegrist, H., von Gunten,
U. (2010) Kinetic assessment and modeling of an ozonation step for full-scale municipal
wastewater treatment: Micropollutant oxidation, by-product formation and disinfection. Water
Res. 45 (2), pp. 605-617.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
37
APPENDIX
Table A1. Average TOC (mg/L) data from grab samples collected during testing period.
Test
O3 Inf
O3 Eff
FC-1
FC-2
FC-3
FC-4
FC-5
SC-1
SC-2
1
6.1
5.9
4.0
3.7
4.1
4.8
4.8
2.1
2.0
2
6.6
6.5
4.6
3.5
4.2
4.8
4.9
2.3
2.0
3
6.0
5.6
3.7
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.3
2.2
1.9
4
5.7
5.6
3.9
3.2
3.9
4.5
4.6
2.2
1.7
5
6.1
5.8
3.9
2.9
3.3
3.7
3.7
1.9
1.4
Table A2. Average UVA (cm-1) data from grab samples collected during testing period.
Test
O3 Inf
O3 Eff
FC-1
FC-2
FC-3
FC-4
FC-5
SC-1
SC-2
1
0.131
0.061
0.064
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.057
0.045
0.046
2
0.130
0.063
0.055
0.034
0.048
0.052
0.052
0.048
0.040
3
0.137
0.057
0.053
0.039
0.046
0.051
0.051
0.042
0.034
4
0.123
0.074
0.059
0.038
0.052
0.067
0.068
0.041
0.033
5
0.125
0.064
0.037
0.027
0.033
0.039
0.040
0.040
0.025
Table A3. Average turbidity (NTU) data from grab samples collected during testing period.
Test
O3 Inf
O3 Eff
FC-1
FC-2
FC-3
FC-4
FC-5
SC-1
SC-2
1
0.70
0.34
0.20
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.30
0.16
2
1.48
0.89
0.63
0.24
0.26
0.22
0.25
0.34
0.13
3
0.97
0.36
0.39
0.19
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.26
0.21
4
0.78
0.39
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.27
0.28
0.20
5
0.68
0.30
0.19
0.15
0.15
0.17
0.16
0.23
0.14
Table A4. Average pH data from grab samples collected during testing period.
Test
O3 Inf
O3 Eff
FC-1
SC-1
SC-2
1
7.0
7.0
7.1
8.1
7.9
2
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.9
7.9
3
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.8
7.9
4
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.9
7.4
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
38
5
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.0
Table A5. TOrC concentrations (ng/L) measured during Test 1. All the “less than” values are
below method reporting limit.
COMPOUND NAME
4-Nonylphenol
Sec Eff
128
O3 Eff
20
FC-2
(20-min EBCT)
<25
FC-3
(10-min EBCT)
<25
4-tert Octylphenol
12
6
<5
<5
Acesulfame-K
200
51
200
223
Acetaminophen
<10
<10
<10
<10
Atenolol
34
<10
<10
<10
Atorvastatin
<10
<10
<10
<10
Azithromycin
63
<10
<10
<10
Bisphenol A
<10
<10
<10
<10
Caffeine
<10
<10
<10
<10
Carbamazepine
365
<10
<10
<10
Carisoprodol
105
39
10
23
DEET
299
56
13
34
Diazepam
<10
<10
<10
<10
Diclofenac
236
<10
<10
<10
Dilantin (Phenytoin)
261
33
<10
<10
Erythromycin-H2O
37
<10
<10
<10
Fipronil
59
11
<2
<2
Fluoxetine
44
<10
<10
<10
Furosemide
142
<10
<10
<10
Galaxolide
5,500
380
62
96
Gemfibrozil
36
<10
<10
<10
Ibuprofen
20
<10
<10
<10
2,750
1,220
1,420
1,690
Iopromide
<10
<10
<10
<10
Meprobamate
303
131
49
102
Iohexol
Metoprolol
324
<10
<10
<10
Naproxen
<10
<10
<10
<10
Nonylphenol diethoxylate
120
<25
<25
<25
Nonylphenol monoethoxylate
153
<25
<25
<25
Octylphenol diethoxylate
<25
<25
<25
<25
Octylphenol monoethoxylate
36
<25
<25
<25
Primidone
184
39
19
29
Propranolol
56
<10
<10
<10
Sucralose
28,700
19,400
7,210
13,200
Sulfamethoxazole
1,220
<10
<10
<10
756
735
60
130
TCEP
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
39
Sec Eff
3,110
O3 Eff
2,770
FC-2
(20-min EBCT)
281
FC-3
(10-min EBCT)
655
TDCPP
913
838
26
62
Tonalide
250
<50
<50
<50
Triclocarban
52
<10
<10
<10
Triclosan
122
<10
<10
<10
Trimethoprim
14
<10
<10
<10
COMPOUND NAME
TCPP
Table A6. TOrC concentrations (ng/L) measured during Test 2. All the “less than” values are
below method reporting limit.
Sec Eff
195
O3 Eff
45
FC-2
(20-min EBCT)
50
FC-3
(10-min EBCT)
<25
4-tert Octylphenol
26
24
<5
<5
Acesulfame-K
736
240
288
374
Acetaminophen
<10
<10
<10
<10
Atenolol
100
<10
<10
<10
Atorvastatin
<10
<10
<10
<10
Azithromycin
94
<10
<10
<10
COMPOUND NAME
4-Nonylphenol
Bisphenol A
<10
<10
<10
<10
Caffeine
<10
<10
<10
<10
Carbamazepine
234
<10
<10
<10
Carisoprodol
68
33
<10
17
DEET
733
217
14
44
Diazepam
<10
<10
<10
<10
Diclofenac
293
<10
<10
<10
Dilantin (Phenytoin)
293
66
<10
<10
Erythromycin-H2O
53
<10
<10
<10
Fipronil
76
24
<2
3
Fluoxetine
61
<10
<10
<10
Furosemide
676
<10
<10
<10
Galaxolide
7,900
880
<50
84
Gemfibrozil
651
<10
<10
<10
Ibuprofen
32
<10
<10
<10
4,390
2,380
1,220
1,950
Iopromide
<10
<10
<10
<10
Meprobamate
292
154
42
74
Metoprolol
479
<10
<10
<10
Naproxen
15
<10
<10
<10
Nonylphenol diethoxylate
148
149
<25
<25
Iohexol
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
40
Sec Eff
250
O3 Eff
278
FC-2
(20-min EBCT)
<25
FC-3
(10-min EBCT)
<25
Octylphenol diethoxylate
<25
<25
<25
<25
Octylphenol monoethoxylate
76
52
<25
<25
Primidone
190
62
14
25
Propranolol
60
<10
<10
<10
Sucralose
35,400
26,000
7,160
12,600
Sulfamethoxazole
1,310
25
<10
<10
TCEP
461
450
49
116
TCPP
3,420
3,160
229
591
TDCPP
812
908
23
74
Tonalide
340
100
<50
<50
Triclocarban
117
23
<10
<10
Triclosan
301
<10
<10
<10
Trimethoprim
29
<10
<10
<10
COMPOUND NAME
Nonylphenol monoethoxylate
Table A7. TOrC concentrations (ng/L) measured during Test 3. All the “less than” values are
below method reporting limit.
Sec Eff
98
O3 Eff
<25
FC-2
(20-min EBCT)
<25
FC-3
(10-min EBCT)
<25
8
<5
<5
<5
Acesulfame-K
<50
<50
105
86
Acetaminophen
<10
<10
<10
<10
Atenolol
29
<10
<10
<10
Atorvastatin
<10
<10
<10
<10
Azithromycin
44
<10
<10
<10
COMPOUND NAME
4-Nonylphenol
4-tert Octylphenol
Bisphenol A
<10
<10
<10
<10
Caffeine
<10
<10
<10
<10
Carbamazepine
307
<10
<10
<10
Carisoprodol
234
57
<10
19
DEET
115
10
10
18
Diazepam
<10
<10
<10
<10
Diclofenac
237
<10
<10
<10
Dilantin (Phenytoin)
235
17
<10
<10
Erythromycin-H2O
14
<10
<10
<10
Fipronil
49
3
<2
<2
Fluoxetine
35
<10
<10
<10
Furosemide
118
<10
<10
<10
Galaxolide
5,800
130
<50
<50
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
41
Sec Eff
18
O3 Eff
<10
FC-2
(20-min EBCT)
<10
FC-3
(10-min EBCT)
<10
12
<10
<10
<10
1,860
601
394
857
Iopromide
<10
<10
<10
<10
Meprobamate
310
114
38
75
COMPOUND NAME
Gemfibrozil
Ibuprofen
Iohexol
Metoprolol
320
<10
<10
<10
Naproxen
<10
<10
<10
<10
Nonylphenol diethoxylate
58
<25
<25
<25
Nonylphenol monoethoxylate
118
<25
<25
<25
Octylphenol diethoxylate
<25
<25
<25
<25
Octylphenol monoethoxylate
39
<25
<25
<25
Primidone
208
22
10
19
Propranolol
50
<10
<10
<10
34,200
17,800
6,880
12,700
Sulfamethoxazole
853
<10
<10
<10
TCEP
549
434
51
139
TCPP
3,790
3,120
218
748
TDCPP
865
826
21
63
Tonalide
190
<50
<50
<50
Triclocarban
43
<10
<10
<10
Triclosan
125
<10
<10
<10
Trimethoprim
<10
<10
<10
<10
Sucralose
Table A8. TOrC concentrations (ng/L) measured during Test 5. All the “less than” values are
below method reporting limit. EBCTs shown in the column headings represent the cumulative
EBCT at the effluent of the filter column.
COMPOUND NAME
4-Nonylphenol
Sec Eff
114
O3 Eff
101
FC-1
(19-min EBCT)
<25
FC-2
(39-min EBCT)
26
FC-3
(29-min EBCT)
<25
4-tert Octylphenol
8
<5
<5
<5
5
Acesulfame-K
94
<50
63
104
103
Acetaminophen
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Atenolol
48
<10
<10
<10
<10
Atorvastatin
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Azithromycin
31
<10
<10
<10
<10
Bisphenol A
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Caffeine
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Carbamazepine
257
<10
17
<10
<10
Carisoprodol
98
16
24
10
18
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
42
Sec Eff
194
O3 Eff
13
FC-1
(19-min EBCT)
32
FC-2
(39-min EBCT)
11
FC-3
(29-min EBCT)
20
Diazepam
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Diclofenac
228
<10
<10
<10
<10
Dilantin (Phenytoin)
273
10
24
<10
12
Erythromycin-H2O
12
<10
<10
<10
<10
COMPOUND NAME
DEET
Fipronil
42
<2
6
<2
<2
Fluoxetine
40
<10
<10
<10
<10
Furosemide
180
<10
<10
<10
<10
Galaxolide
5,000
<50
100
58
130
Gemfibrozil
27
<10
<10
<10
<10
Ibuprofen
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
11,600
2,670
2,540
649
1,490
Iopromide
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Meprobamate
316
64
83
40
76
Iohexol
Metoprolol
311
<10
<10
<10
<10
Naproxen
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Nonylphenol diethoxylate
107
<25
<25
<25
<25
Nonylphenol monoethoxylate
131
<25
<25
<25
<25
Octylphenol diethoxylate
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
Octylphenol monoethoxylate
43
<25
<25
<25
<25
Primidone
215
13
17
15
19
Propranolol
56
<10
<10
<10
<10
Sucralose
32,500
14,200
16,700
7,370
12,900
Sulfamethoxazole
1,450
<10
12
13
29
TCEP
636
488
448
58
149
TCPP
2,880
2,170
2,210
259
844
TDCPP
759
711
623
20
71
Tonalide
140
<50
<50
<50
<50
Triclocarban
62
<10
<10
<10
<10
Triclosan
76
<10
<10
<10
<10
Trimethoprim
11
<10
<10
<10
<10
Trussell Technologies, Inc. Pasadena, CA
43