Dave Fischer

QED Environmental Systems Inc.

Ann Arbor, MI / San Leandro, CA
Copyright QED Environmental Systems, Inc. 2007- 2012; all rights reserved.
Air Stripping for VOC Removal
- Advanced Topics
Review - the Air Stripping process
The Impact of Fouling Conditions
Tower vs. Tray
Review - the QED Air Stripper Modeler
Extending the Model
Complicated Removal Design (VOC, THM,
ammonia)
Case Studies
Topic Overview
Air Stripping
Mass transfer
Process governed
by Henrys Law
Counter-current
flow ensures
efficient mass
transfer throughout
the entire flow path
High air to water
surface for transfer
is created by the
turbulent froth
mixture
Air Stripping
The froth in action.
Sliding Tray Type Stripper
Method
Air bubbles - froth and
turbulent mixing creates
mass transfer surface area
Advantages
Easy access
Less prone to fouling
Less intrusive at site
Wide flow turn-down
Disadvantage
Requires higher pressure
blower (HP)
Selected QED Air Strippers
E-Z Tray
Model 6.4
(65 gpm max)
E-Z Tray
Model 16.4
(150 gpm max)
E-Z Tray
Model 24.4
(250 gpm max)
E-Z Tray
Model 96.6
(1000 gpm max)
Stacking Tray Stripper
Stacking Tray Design
Stacking tray strippers are a
series of stacked rectangular
boxes with bottom perforations
Trays layers are sealed with
gaskets and fastened together
with clamps around outer edges
Cleaning requires lifting trays
and breaking pipe connections,
often requires two or more
people or an overhead crane
Requires access to all sides for
installation and maintenance
More information at -- http://www.qedenv.com/davislf/
High air to water ratio (A/W)
#1. Process parameter
High surface area of contact
between air and water
Clean air (concentration gradient
driven process)
Dissolved volatile organics
in a water matrix (modeling valid for
levels < 25% of water solubility)
No free-phase organics
No surfactants or other H lowering
factors (dissolved polar organics)
Stripper is level
Impact of dirty air
Successful Process Requirements
Clean air Contaminated air
Stripper Performance Impacts
Air or liquid flow restrictions
Significant water or air temperature changes
Free phase product or other sorptive
compounds that decrease stripping, such as
organic solids
Surfactants or other polar organic chemicals
that can lower H for target organics
Contaminated air
Air Stripping
Temperature impacts the process higher
temperature = better stripping
Process temperature is roughly = water
temperature
Freezing is not a concern for continuous
operation
Discharged air is saturated at the process
temperature (consider condensation and thermal
impacts on air treatment units)
Some physical elements
Temperature Effects
Thermal mass of water >> that of air example (200gpm flow;
1300cfm air flow):
Water Temp (F)
55
55
55
Air Temp (F)
55
ProcessTemp (F)
50
70
80
100
54.9
55.2
55.3
55.6
Hotter air is less dense (also for higher elevation) so stripping will
decrease example (Tw = 55F; MTBE in = 10,000 ppb; 4-tray stripper)
Air Temp (F)
40
50
80
MTBE (ppb)
4248
4343
4545
Discharge Air
Entrained water droplets
and air at 100% RH at the
process temperature
High efficiency mist
eliminator for droplet removal
Improper demister sizing or
fouling can cause water blow
by
Water knock out,
downstream process
insulation, etc. for
condensation issues
Air Flow
Types of Tray Air Stripper Fouling
Metal oxides
1.
Hardness (scale)
Suspended solids
Bio solids, slimes
Oils & Greases
Free phase non-
aqueous phase
liquids (NAPL)
1. CO2 stripping can cause a slight pH increase, leading to insoluble metal
oxide formation
Bio Fouling
Example pH adjustment to minimize inorganic tray fouling caused
a fungus to rapidly develop a protective slime.
Tray Fouling Knowing When to Clean
Normal stripper sump pressure =4-6inch H2O / tray stage
Tray Fouling What Does it Look Like?
Expected performance impact is gradual as air flow decreases, due to tray fouling.
E-Z Tray Tower Stacking Tray
Air Strippers Air Strippers Air Strippers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Z Tray

Advantages Cleaning
Single
person
cleaning
Packing
access and
removal is
difficult
Major
disassembly and
multi person crew
needed
Stripper Cleaning
Cleaning frequency and effort is highly site-
specific
Example -
1000ppm TDS, 260ppm total hardness, 0.03ppm
iron - stripper requires cleaning every 3 weeks
Time to clean an E-Z Tray stripper
Two 1000gpm, E-Z Tray 96.6 units (8 doors, 48
trays) takes 8-10 minutes/tray to fully remove,
pressure wash and reinstall all the trays in this
system
Clean trays
Backup tray set
Sequestering agents
(decrease cleaning
frequency)
inorganic
polyphosphates
Bio-fouling
Ozone, etc.
pH adjustment
In/out
Pre-stripper oxidation
and filtration
Fouling - Preventative Measures
Tower Stripper
Method
Thin film of water flows
over a high surface area
packing
Advantages
Lower energy use in
the air mover, due to
lower overall pressure
drop
Disadvantages
Flow turn-down difficult
Difficult to clean
Tall structure
Short circuiting
Tower Stripper
If fouling conditions
develop, the tower
can quickly loose
mass transfer area.
Small local areas of
deposition can
produce flow short
circuiting that further
limits available
contact area.
Tray vs.Tower Stripper
Hard to access for cleaning
(high O&M costs)
Very tall structure (wind
loading, thermal issues)
Operating conditions
difficult to observe
Complex design process
due to structural issues
No web based performance
model, models harder to use
E-Z Tray

vs. Tower O&M Example

Site in Sturgis, MI treating 250gpm water containing:
1,1,1-trichloroethane
c-1,2-dichloroethylene
hexachlorobutadiene
methylene chloride
naphthalene
tetrachloroethylene (PERC,PCE)
trichloroethylene (TCE)
Oversized tower replaced with a 500gpm E-Z Tray 48.6 model
Historical tower cleaning with acid cost about $54,000/year
Pressure washing the E-Z Tray every 40-50 days estimated at
$8,000/year
Modeling the Process
Xin = aqueous concentration entering the air stripper
Xout = aqueous concentration exiting the air stripper
Yin = gas concentration entering the air stripper
Nth = number of theoretical trays in the air stripper
S = stripping factor
Kh = Henrys Law constant
L = liquid flow rate
G = gas flow rate
Web based Model
http://www.qedenv.com/modeler
The performance modeler is based on the design
procedure discussed in -- Kibbey, T. C. G., K. F. Hayes and
Pennell, K.D., Application of Sieve-Tray Air Strippers to
the Treatment of Surfactant-Containing Wastewaters,
AIChE Journal, Vol. 47, No. 6, June 2001. Also -- Perry, R.
H., and D. W. Green, Perrys Chemical Engineers Hand-
book, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York 1997.
Henrys Constant (H)
Larger H = more easily stripped (atm/mol-frac)
vinyl chloride - 1245
TCE 648
benzene - 309
MTBE - 32
acetone - 2.4
1 Pick Contaminants
Temperatures (air and water)
Altitude (air density)
Flow rates (air and water)
- Process impacts
- Hydraulic impacts
2 Other Information
Process Variables
First pass pick the stripper model that matches
project flow
3 Pick a Stripper
Metric units available on Model Site
Concentration in ppb (ug/L) 1000ppb = 1ppm
Each contaminant behaves independently
4 Contaminant Concentrations
5 Review Model Results
(URL listed to allow easy remodeling)
How certain field analytical results are modeled
TPH, DRO, GRO, Total-BTEX, TVPH, F1 F4, C6-C10, etc. All
represent groups of organic compounds, with ranges of Henrys
constant (H). A representative compound is used to stand for the
group. Typical practice:
BTEX modeled as benzene (lowest H out of the BTEX)
TPH modeled as either benzene (TPH-GRO) or naphthalene
(TPH-DRO)
F1 (C6-C10) model as GRO = benzene
F2 (C10-C18) model as DRO = naphthalene
F3 and above (>C16) = difficult to strip
This method carries RISK if the group actually has more lower H components
than that of the representative. Model individual components if you need to meet
specific targets.
We Can Help Model Special Cases
Flow very close to rated maximum for a given stripper model
Air flow conditions different than the standard (+/- 15-20%)
Strippers with a non-standard number of trays
Blended flow calculations
Strippers in series (use effluent from first model run as influent
for second)
Contaminants that are not listed in the model contaminant table
Calculation of effective H from field pilot data
Results less than 1ppb
Pilot cases where concentrations are >> 25% water solubility
Special Cases
Standard 4&6 Tray Custom 7 Tray Standard Series
Series same air
(like an 8 Tray)
Parallel different flow rates
Blended discharge
Complicated Removal Situations
Free phase NAPL
Surfactants / H altering non-strippable
components
THM Removal
Ammonia Removal
Free Phase Organics
Dramatically lower removal
efficiency
Can coat walls and
accumulate in the sump to act
as an ongoing VOC source
Can cause partitioning effects
where a percentage of certain
VOCs are sequestered from
the stripping process
Free Phase Organics - Partitioning
Contaminated
Water
Stripping removes
dissolved portion of
contaminants some
NAPL moves through
the system. Some
organics may also
partition into the free-
phase component.
Organics re-equilibrate in
the sample vial -
increasing the dissolved
concentrations in the
treated water.
Free Phase Organics - Example
Example site handling tanker ballast water with a combination of
free phase hydrocarbons and VOCs dissolved in water
20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Water + Hydrocarbon
pilot
model
(% Maximum Flow)
(
%

V
O
C

R
e
m
o
v
a
l
)
Surfactants / Polar Organics
Lower effective H for all contaminants due to
solubilization of organic compounds by surfactant
micelles.
Can cause foaming
Sometimes subtle (and not required when polar organics
are present)
Demister fouling and blower back-pressure increase
Control = Anti-foam additives (does not recover stripping
effectiveness )
Control = Knock-out tank prior to demister
Closed DOD site with low level dissolved TCE. Visual indication of
excessive foam in upper stripper trays. TOC 2-3X greater than sum
of target organics.
Surfactants / Polar Organics Example
Normal froth
Surfactant impacted froth
Surfactants / Polar Organics Example (cont.)
Field results show a consistent 60-85% reduction in stripping capability vs.
theoretical performance prediction for TCE.
THM Removal
Trihalomethanes (THMs) can form in drinking water
when disinfectant (chlorine) breaks down precursor
organic compounds, normally organic solids
Air stripping is an effective way to reduce THMs
THMs can re-form after stripping if organic precursors
are still available
Chloroform Removal
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
THM Removal
CHCl3 in
CHCl3 out
In 24 hour
Out 24 hour
Time (days)
C
h
l
o
r
o
f
o
r
m

(
p
p
b
)
THM Removal Possible Process
Successful THM removal
process design will need to
account for remaining THM
precursors, while providing
sufficient residual disinfection.
Clear well loop design or
remote reservoir loop may
provide the best solution.
Ammonia Removal
Dissolved ammonia gas can be stripped from water
H is very low (very hard to strip) requiring high A/W to
achieve significant removals
pH adjustment is required
Pilot testing required to understand the balance
between ionic and dissolved gas forms
Ammonia Removal
pH adjusted > 11
prior to air stripper,
then adjusted back
to required level
Model assumes
the dissolved gas
NH
3
Ammonia Removal
From EPA article (ref. below) -- A/W of 300-500 cfm/gallon
are typical for ammonia removal. Using QEDs normal
dimensionless A/W (ft3/min air / ft3/min water) this
equates to A/W of 2200 - 3700.
Normal A/W for VOCs are 50-200.
The only way to achieve high A/W with the E-Z Tray
systems is to lower the liquid flow rate.
Ammonia removal is viable for low liquid flow situations.
EPA Waste Water Technology Fact Sheet Ammonia Stripping EPA 832-F-00-019,
Sept. 2000
Additional Site Information for Design
Site history of DNAPL and/or LNAPL
Parameters that are > 25% of water solubility + are
hard to strip (DRO, C12-C28 hydrocarbons, etc.)
Is O&G above detection limit (is limit low enough)
Is there air contamination near the blower inlet
Does stable foam form if target water is shaken in a jar
Is there an offset between TOC and the target organics
Site history of surfactant use
Are high shear pumps used to capture the water (stable
emulsions of NAPL)
Pilot Testing
Prepackaged,
just add electricity
Rental
Used for scale-up
design
Allows H correction
from results when
NAPLs, surfactants,
etc. are known to be
present
Case Study Use of Pilot Data
Target contaminant = TCE at 140ppb
Model predicts <1ppb result (100% removal)
Field results show 1.4ppb result (98.7-99% removal)
TOC checked modeled contaminants add to 280ppb, TOC in is
1300ppb (TOC after stripper is 1100ppb)
There is about 1000ppb of unknown
Original tower stripper also never met modeling prediction
supplier blamed fouled media
Slight abnormal foaming observed
Normal H for TCE is 648 (atm/mol-frac); pilot results show an
effective H between 97 and 236 (atm/mol-frac)
Used effective H values from pilot data to increase air to water ratio
(A/W) two stripper model steps to achieve target
Other Stripper Applications
Hydrogen Sulfide easy to strip (pH needs to
be dropped < pH = 6)
(H = 545 atm/mol-frac)
Radon removal extremely easy to strip
(H = 4680 atm/mol-frac)
Methane removal extremely easy to strip
(H = 35390 atm/mol-frac)
Case Study 1
VOC treatment of tanker
ballast water
Strippers replaced an aging
activated sludge treatment
process that was unable to
handle changes in flow and
concentration
Process string includes free-
phase removal and air
treatment
Pilot testing used prior to
design
Case Study 2
VOC reduction prior to SBR
treatment of pharmaceutical
wastewater
Stripper air flow rate much lower
than flow from SBR
Allowed smaller CATOX
air treatment unit
VOC
Treatment Plant
Before
Treatment Plant
After
Thermal Oxidizer
Less VOC
VOC
Case Study 3 Cheyenne, WY
Abandoned Atlas Missile
sites contaminated city
wells with chlorinated
solvent
US Army Corps is QEDs
customer
Strippers will treat city
water during high demand,
summer months (4000gpm
capacity)
Excellent equipment
reliability required to
ensure continuous water
treatment
System started June 2011
Questions?
David Fischer
QED Environmental Systems, Inc.
Tel: 800-624-2026
E-mail: dfischer@qedenv.com
WEB:
www.qedenv.com