Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 50

Digester Foaming

Problems and Solutions


May 15, 2013
Digester Foaming
Problems and Solutions
Authored by: Tom Wilson
Presented by: Rusty Schroedel
Co-authors
•  Tom Wilson, Ph. D., BCEE (Lead
Author)
•  TEWLLC
•  Barrington Heights, IL

•  Perry Schafer
•  Brown and Caldwell,
•  Washington DC

• Krishna Pagilla, Ph.D.


•  Illinois Institute of Technology,
•  Chicago, IL
Acknowledgements
Much of this material was extracted directly from the
lead author and co-authors’ information and co-authors’
organization presentations, as well as materials
previously published/presented elsewhere by IIT,
CSWEA, WEF, and WERF. Sincere thanks to all.
Today’s Presentation
•  The problem
•  Basics
•  On-going Research
•  Causes
•  Cures
•  Summary
The Problem
The problem
•  Anaerobic Energy is the Energy Production Center of
WWTP
•  Upset the Anaerobic Digester
•  Impact Gas Piping and Handling Equipment
•  Making Unsightly and Unsafe Conditions
•  Damage Tanks and Equipment
•  Lots of contradictory information
•  What solves the problem causes it elsewhere
Impacts of AD Foaming
Economic Non-Economic
•  Personnel Time •  Health and Safety
•  Equipment •  Aesthetic Effects
•  Odor Problems
•  Supplies
•  Process Performance
•  Biogas & Energy
•  Outside Contract Services
Impacts of AD Foaming  
Clogged gas handling equipment

Bottom of combination flame arrestor/


pressure–vacuum relief valve on
digester cover
Extreme Impacts of AD Foaming
(Holy!) Rivers of AD Foam….

(Perhaps! Plugged gas


lines…to exploding
digesters)

Marquette, Michigan Kankakee, Illinois


Extreme Impacts of AD Foaming  
Floating cover failure

San Francisco Southeast Plant 1990s


Basics
Two types of AD “Foaming”
“True” foaming
•  A separate foam phase is formed at digester
liquid surface
•  Usually a semi stable or semi stable low density
material
•  Gas bubble size is about same or smaller than
sludge particle size (stable foam)
Two types of AD “Foaming”
Rapid Volume Expansion
•  Recent recognition of problem formerly
called foaming
•  The entire liquid volume of the
digester has a rapidly dropping density,
due to gas holdup within mass, with
corresponding liquid expansion of
entire liquid contents
– Sometimes causes true foam layer on top
to be pushed out of digester
– Often results in actual digested solids( not
just foam)moving up and out of digester
AD Foam - Three Phase Foam
•  Liquid-Solids-Gas
•  Solids & Liquid
Constituents
•  Bubbles Stabilized
by Filaments and
Surfactants
•  Dissolved Flotation
Effects of Biogas
•  Sludge Particles are
Accumulated in Rosen, M.J. Surfactants and Interfacial Phenomena, 3rd ed., Wiley

Foam
•  Dense Foam
•  Accumulates in AD
Rapid Volume Expansion Residuals and BiOSOlILlS 2011

Figure 3 Illustration of digester volumes with low gas production (left) and high gas

production (right).

Normal
BUBBLE HYDRODYNAMICS
With rapid volume expansion
Gas holdup and rapid volume expansion are directly related to bubble behavior in an anaerobic
digester. Gas holdup depends on the gas generation rate and superficial bubble velocity. Higher
Based on: Chapman and Krugel, RAPID VOLUME EXPANSION –
gas production rates and slower bubble rise velocities will correspond to higher gas holdup
AN INVESTIGATION INTO DIGESTER OVERFLOWS AND SAFETY,WEF Residuals and Biosolids 2011.
(Bufflere, 1998; Chisti, 1988). Bubble rise velocity is related to the complex flow behavior of
liquid, gas, and particles associated with digested sludge, and in particular, the following
characteristics impact bubble behavior: bubble size, shape, rise velocity, viscosity, surface
tension, temperature, and pressure. This section describes the fluid mechanics and bubble
behavior associated with gas production in an anaerobic digester as it relates to gas holdup and
rapid volume expansion.
On-going Research
WERF Study
WERF INFR1SG10 Project Goals
1.  Literature Study to Identify State-of-the-Art and Gaps/
Needs in Knowledge
2.  Plant Survey – Reconcile Literature Gaps with Survey
Responses
3.  Full Scale Demonstrations to Address Gaps and
Needs
4.  Develop a Guidance Document for the WWTP
Industry on AD Foaming Prevention/Control
Map of US Utilities Surveyed by WERF
39 US Plants (Findings)
•  32 have AD Foaming
•  All Seasons
•  Both Intermittent and
Persistent
•  All AS Configurations
•  Filaments Common
•  Surfactants/FOG
•  Foaming AD Mix
Approximate placement of Continuously
•  Defoamers, Uniform
WWTPs Surveyed in USA

Loading, “Optimum
Mixing”, WAS
•  Gaps and needs from earlier knowledge still Chlorination (?),
remain Thickening (??) are Top
•  Full scale investigations at select plants only way Solutions Tried
forward
On-going Research
•  CSWEA Survey Results from:

LOCAL ASSOCIATION ASSISTS OPERATORS ASSESS


DIGESTER FOAMING –
SURVEY AND WORKSHOP RESULTS IN SOLUTIONS

By:
Ralph B. “Rusty” Schroedel, Jr., P.E., BCEE
Jeff Brochtrup, P.E., Madison (WI) Metropolitan Sewerage District
Randall A. Wirtz, Ph.D., P.E., Strand Associates, Inc.
Eric Lecuyer, City of Crystal Lake, IL

2011 WEF Residuals and Biosolids Conference


Brief CSWEA Survey Summary
•  About 216 WWTPs have anaerobic digestion:
•  Illinois: 64
•  Minnesota: 56
•  Wisconsin: 96

•  Ad hoc committee developed questionnaire to gauge


the extent of anaerobic digester foaming problems at
WWTPs

•  Follow-up calls and e-mails


Survey – 94 Responses (44%)
Significant Digester Foaming in Last 10 Years?
100%
90%
80%
70% 50 of the 94 Responses
60% 23% (min) of the 216 WWTPs
Percent of
Responses 50% 53%
40% 47%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Yes No
Survey Responses
Was Cause of Digester Foaming Determined?
100%
90%
80%
70%
Percent of 60%
Responses 50% 55%
40%
45%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Yes No
Survey Trends
•  Size of WWTP
•  Type of liquid biological treatment
•  Foaming in activated sludge?
•  Nutrient removal
•  Type of anaerobic digestion
•  Digester detention time
•  Digester mixing system
Survey Trends
Size of WWTPs
100%
90%
6 of 7
80% 86%

Percent of 70%
27 of 45
Plants w/
60% 12 of 24
Digester 60%
Foaming 50%
50%
40% 6 of 19
30% 32%
20%
10%
0%
< 1.0 mgd 1 to 5 mgd 5 to 20 mgd > 20 mgd
Survey Trends
Type of Biological Treatment
100%
90%
80%

Percent of 70% 43 of 73
Plants w/ 60%
59% 10 of 25
Digester 50%
Foaming 3 of 10
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Activated Sludge Trickling Filters RBCs
Survey Trends
Foaming in Activated Sludge?
100%
90%
80% 14 of 20
Percent of 70% 32 of 55
Plants w/ 60% 70%
Digester 50% 58%
Foaming 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Yes No
Survey Trends
Phosphorus Removal
100%
90%
80%
Percent of 70% 14 of 22
30 of 49
Plants w/ 60%
61% 64%
Digester 50%
Foaming
40% 8 of 26
30%
31%
20%
10%
0%
CPR BPR No P Removal
Survey Trends
Nitrogen Removal
100%
90%
80%
70%
Percent of 41 of 68
Plants w/ 60% 60% 2 of 4
Digester 50%
50% 9 of 24
Foaming 40%
38%
30%
20%
10%
0%
NH3 Removal Total N Removal No N Removal
Survey Trends

Digestion Process
100%

90%

80%

70%
Percent of
Plants w/ 60% 46 of 82
Digester 56%
50% 3 of 7
Foaming
40% 43%
0 of 1 0 of 3
30%

20%

10%

0%
Meso Only Thermo Only TPAD Acid-Gas
Survey Trends
Digester Detention Time
Digester Detention Time
100%
90%
80%
70%
Percent of 3 of 5 14 of 23 19 of 32
60% 61%
Plants w/ 60% 59%
16 of 34
Digester 50%
Foaming 47%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 - 10 days 11 - 20 days 21 - 30 days > 30 days
Survey Trends
Digester Mixing System
100%
90%
80%
7 of 10
Percent of 70% 18 of 28 22 of 36
70%
Plants w/ 60% 64% 61%
Digester 50%
Foaming 40% 7 of 21
30% 33%
20%
10%
0%
Gas - Canon Gas - Lances Liquid - Pumped Liquid - Draft Tube
Recirc.
Causes
of “True Foaming”
Typical Causes of “True” Foaming
Varying Feed Sludge Loadings(Quality & Quantity)
•  VS loading rate & variation
•  Ratio of primary sludge to WAS
•  High ratio of WAS
•  Nocardia and Microthrix Parvicella
•  Surfactants
•  Inconsistent or high VFAs (?)
•  Low influent solids concentration
Filaments and AD Foaming
•  Gordonia (Nocardia) amarae
•  Microthrix parvicella (BNR)
•  Thresholds for AS and AD
foaming are different
•  Stable foam (Stable for
Hours)
•  High solids content
•  Definite primary cause of AD
foaming
Typical Causes of “True” Foaming (cont.)
Mixing
•  Too little
•  Too much
•  Gas or mechanical
•  Continuous of intermittent
•  Fine bubble mixing
•  Pumped mixing (too much nozzle velocity)
Typical Causes of “True” Foaming (Cont.)
Digester Configuration
•  Shape
•  Cover
•  Head space

Operating Parameters
•  pH/Alkalinity
•  VA concentration
•  Temperature
•  Headspace pressure
•  Gas withdrawal rate
Re: WERF & CSWEA Studies
Typical Causes of Rapid Volume
Expansion
•  Digester startup
•  Batch feeding
•  Starting digester mixing
•  Stopping digester mixing
•  Changing direction of digester mixing
•  Changing the intensity of digester mixing
Source: Chapman and Krugel, RAPID VOLUME EXPANSION –AN
INVESTIGATION INTO DIGESTER OVERFLOWS AND SAFETY,
WEF Residuals and Biosolids 2011.
Cures
of “True Foaming”
Prevention and Control of Foaming
•  Physical break-up by sludge sprays
•  Chemical addition (defoamants, No Cl2)
•  Sludge pre-treatment technologies
•  Prevention
•  Uniform sludge feeding (flow and load)
•  Optimized mixing (not more mixing!)
•  Control of foaming in liquid treatment
•  Change in digester cover/piping/shape
Mitigation and Adaptation
Mitigation
•  Minimize Feed of Foaming Organisms
•  Proper Feed Control – quantity, frequency, mixture
consistency
•  Good Mixing
•  Consistent Temperature
Mitigation and Adaptation
Adaptation
•  Surface Discharge
•  Surface Removal
•  Foam Suppressant Chemical Feed
•  Foam Trap on Gas Lines
•  Foam Sensor
•  Protection of Pressure/Vacuum Release Valves
•  Cover Design
Key Gaps and Needs – Full Scale Focus
•  PS:WAS solids ratio effects
•  VSLR and VSLR variation effects
•  Biological versus non-biological foaming
•  Feed sludge holding effects
•  Defoamer application effectiveness
•  Sludge pre-treatment effectiveness
•  Other strategies (foam destroyer, level control, etc.)
•  Methods (foam sensing, potential, etc.)
•  Fundamental
Rapid Volume Expansion
•  During startup digester feed should be at a reduced
volume and gradually increased over time.
•  Digesters should include a means to accommodate
volume expansion to ensure the digester has the
capability to safely remove sludge during a rapid
expansion event.
•  Appropriate digester gas system operating protocol and
gas system safety features should be in place to
prevent a rapid drop in pressure.

Source: Chapman and Krugel, RAPID VOLUME EXPANSION –AN INVESTIGATION INTO DIGESTER OVERFLOWS AND SAFETY,WEF Residuals and Biosolids 2011.
Rapid Volume Expansion (Cont.)
•  A robust digester mixing system should be utilized to
minimize dead volume. In addition, the mixing system
should operate continuously.
•  Changes in digester mixing direction should occur
slowly to prevent a rapid change in gas holdup and a
corresponding rapid change in the digester volume.
•  When planning for a digester shutdown, the digester
mixing system should be gradually reduced in speed
and stopped over a period of time to prevent sudden
changes in gas holdup.

Source: Chapman and Krugel, RAPID VOLUME EXPANSION –AN INVESTIGATION INTO DIGESTER OVERFLOWS AND SAFETY,WEF Residuals and Biosolids 2011.
Summary
•  Foaming in anaerobic digesters is a significant and
wide-spread problem in The US
•  Various US organizations are currently investigating
problem
•  This presentation presents information from and about
CSWEA and WERF studies
•  Two types of foaming identified
•  “True”
•  Rapid Volume Expansion
Summary (Cont.)
•  Causes and Cures do not completely overlap
•  Various causes and mechanisms have been identified,
including physical causes, biological causes, and
chemical causes as well as operational and design
causes.
•  The most effective operational, design, and chemical
“cures” observed to date are also presented
A Few Last Words from Professor Pagilla
•  Foaming probably happens all the time because there
is dissolved gas (biogas) flotation in the digesters all
the time. Foaming problems happen when the physical
system cannot handle the amount of foam generated.
For example, a foam trap and drainage system on the
gas collection piping eliminates the problems in gas
treatment systems (scrubbers, etc.)
•  The issue of rapid collapse of foam is serious issue. We
believe that this happens due to too high solids content
in the foam progressively, making it unstable at some
point (goes back to the fundamental foam formation
mechanisms).
-K. Pagilla 11/8/2012
A Few Last Words from Professor Pagilla
•  As long as the AD is maintained with relatively uniform
solids concentration throughout the volume and
uniform temperature, there is no need for mixing above
and beyond that. At the bottom, you need
supplemental mixing because the "natural" gas mixing
due to biogas production is not sufficient to keep the
solids in suspension. But at the top, there is plenty of
gas escaping into the gas dome, and should be
sufficient to keep the solids in suspension. Lastly, the
use of pumped mixing is common and is important to
understand it in terms more than number of turnovers.
The location of the inlet and the nozzle velocity are
important.
-K. Pagilla 11/8/2012
Questions?

Вам также может понравиться