New Tools to Assess the Potential

Risk of FOG Deposit Accumulation

in a Wastewater Collection
System
J oel Ducoste, PhD
North Carolina State University
jducoste@ncsu.edu
Outline
Issues related to FOG
Background on FOG and GI Research
New Tools
Measurement of FOG in GI Effluent
Modeling FOG deposit Formation in a Sewer
Collection System
Issues for the Future
Questions
Sewer Collection System Infrastructure
Grease accumulation and roots intrusion are affecting sewer
conveyance performance nationwide; potentially leading to SSOs
Projected that more than 75% of sewer systems work at half capacity due
to either grease related clogs or roots intrusion
Projected cost to keeping the sewers clear is well over $25 billion
Poorly
maintained
grease
interceptor
Root Intrusions
Pipe
Sag
Sewer pipe
blocked with
FOG
Grease Busters
Joel
Peter
Ray
Egone
Deposits
Moisture content: 6 to 86%,
Contained >50% lipid content, (palmitic acid).
Contained calcium
The adhesion of oil on Willow tree roots occurs instantaneously,
and is independent on amount of time
Field Interceptors
Peak flows 3-7 times the average flow
Long average residence times, exceeding 2 hrs
Low pHs and DO suggest microbial activity
Simple modifications to GI configuration can enhance
performance
Controlled Lab Experiments with Lab Interceptors
3x Residence Time Yielded ~10% increase in performance
GI piping must be designed to distribute the influent/ effluent flow
Baffle wall designs with inlet/outlet configurations
Br i ef Revi ew of Past Resear c h
Ducoste et al. Research Results
Analysis of Internal Grease Abatement Devices
Challenged with a range of Emulsion strengths, Flow Rates,
and Temperature
Results
Emulsion strength and flow increase, the performance of the
GAS decreased
Results, in general, below 50%
Air induction did not improve performance
The heightened temperature caused a narrowing of the oil
globule distribution, with the count of relatively smaller
globules and relatively larger globules decreasing.
Increasing temp reduced performance for weak emulsions and
improved performance for strong emulsions
External GIs were able to remove 75- 80%
Ducoste et al. Research
Spatial Variation of FOG Deposit Formation in Pilot
Scale Sewer Collection System
Challenged a pilot collection system with FOG under
different conditions, pipe deformation, roots intrusion
Results
Significant FOG deposit formation on surface of intruded
roots and in pipe sag location
Physical characteristics of FOG deposits were a function of
pH
Ducoste et al. Research
What is really going on in the sewer
collection system?

Metal
catalyst
Me+
Me+
Me+
Ducoste et al. Research
FOG Deposit Formation Mechanism



Kitchen
wastewater
wastewater concrete
source
source
FOG on
water
surface
FFA
partition
Slow chemical
hydrolysis in
sewer lines
Ca
2+
Saponification
FOG deposits
Un-
reacted
DLVO

Gypsum
Biologically driven
hydrogenation
(Rhead et al., 1971)
Lipase driven hydrolysis
(Matsui et al., 2005; Ghosh
et al., 1996)
Gypsum removed
due to water action
(Mori et al., 1992)
- Effect of different types of fatty acids on surface
saponification reaction













- FFA profile in sewers contains mostly Palmitic!!

Palmitic
acid
0.25 g
(Palmitic_1)
Palmitic acid
1 g
(Palmitic_2)
Oleic acid
0.25 g
(Oleic)
Linoleic acid
0.25 g
(Linoleic)
Ducoste et al. Research
Chal l enges
Need to stop or significantly slow this
deposit formation process
FOG measurement
Improved FOG removal process
performance
New Novel FOG removal processes
Pipe surface treatment
Predicting sewer collection system site
locations for increased FOG deposit
formation


The FOG Measurement Problem
Received questionable results from data sent commercial
laboratories for FOG measurement with Method 1664
Lab Concentration (mg/L) Mean Std. Dev. RSD (%)*
1 800 639 788 742.3 89.7 12.1
2 753 671 678 700.7 45.5 6.5
Actual
Conc: 1137.5 mg/L
Lab % Recovery of FOG Mean
1 70 56 69 65
2 66 59 60 62
Objectives for Understanding FOG
Measurement Performance
Task 1 Investigate recovery of standards used for
Method 1664 Analysis and compare with constituents
shown to exist in FOG deposits
Task 2 Investigate Variety of FOG materials of plant
and animal origin
Task 3 Examine measurement of false positive or
interference as a result of background food-waste
matrix

Task 1 Recovery of Standards
Stearic Acid Hexadecane
Palmitic Acid Oleic Acid
EPA Method 1664 Standards
Primary Fatty Acids found in FOG
Deposits (Keener et al., 2009)
Per EPA Method 1664 Specifications:
400 mg of standard material was dissolved in 100 mL Acetone
Reagent water was then spiked with standard/acetone solution
to get 40 mg/L standard in solution
Standards are used to demonstrate initial precision and
recovery in a lab
Standards must therefore be representatives of FOG waste
Task 1 Recovery of Standards
Hexadecane
Stearic Acid
Palmitic Acid
Oleic Acid
Food
Based
Petroleum
Based
% Recovery
84.96.6%
94.67.5%
89.413.1%
73.72.4%
Summary:
Statistical Difference
Observed between
Palmitic and hexadecane
(p-value = 0.0418)

High std. deviation for
Oleic

What can explain under-
recoveries?
Adhesion?
Volatility?
Solubility?

Task 1 Recovery of Standards
Hexadecane
Stearic Acid
Palmitic Acid
Oleic Acid
Food
Based
Petroleum
Based
Solubility:
Fatty acids and hexadecane are highly
soluble in n-hexane
Partitioning between water phase is
a non-issue as these materials are
insoluble in water (non-polar)

Not the issue


Task 1 Recovery of Standards
Hexadecane
Stearic Acid
Palmitic Acid
Oleic Acid
Food
Based
Petroleum
Based
Adhesion and Volatility:
Volatility is easy to test:
Put known mass of sample through
the same procedure of distillation and
drying and check mass afterwards
hexadecane showed high volatility
while fatty acids did not

Free Fatty Acid sample loss is therefore
believed to be through adhesion

Does use of a volatile standard make
sense for food-laden waste streams?


Volatilization
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Lard 100.7 100.3 100.3
Canola Oil 100.0 99.9 100.9
Oleic Acid 101.0 100.5 100.3
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
%

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

o
f

S
a
m
p
l
e

Test of volatility indicated that FFAs and FOG Material isnt lost at
temperatures used
The hexadecane standard on the other hand lost as much as 33% of
mass during hood-drying
Task 2 FOG Type Recovery
Canola Oil Corn Oil
Crisco Lard
Canola Oil Corn Oil Crisco Lard
Saturated: 7% 14% 27% 34%
Monounsaturated: 65% 29% 23% 43%
Polyunsaturated: 28% 57% 50% 22%
% Recovery of FOG Type @ ~1000 mg/L Does Saturation
Level Matter?

% Recovery of FOG Type @ ~100 mg/L (for Canola and Lard)
Does Concentration Level Effect % Recovery?
Lard
Canola Oil
Corn Oil
Crisco
% Recovery
93.10.8%
92.76.9%
90.02.2%
94.52.5%
Results:
No statistically significant
difference observed between
FOG types (p-value =0.2567)
Task 2 FOG Type Recovery
Lard @ 1000
mg/L
Canola Oil @
1000 mg/L
% Recovery
93.10.8%
88.92.8%
94.52.5%
ANOVA
Canola Oil @
100 mg/L
Lard @ 100
mg/L
91.14.9%
p-value =0.0666
p-value =0.2124
No significant difference
w/ concentration level for
canola
*
or lard
Task 2 FOG Type Recovery
Lard
Canola Oil
Corn Oil
Crisco
Results:
no differences observed
between Fat/Oils and FFAs
(p-value =0.2780)
Stearic Acid
Palmitic Acid
Oleic Acid
Task 2 FOG Type Recovery
Task 3 Food Matrix Inflation/Interference
Table Sugar
(Sucrose)
Flour Corn Starch Whey Protein
Fiber
Material Mean Std. Dev
( - ) (g COD/g) (g COD/g)
Sucrose 1.16 0.02
All Purpose Flour 0.84 0.10
Corn Starch 1.56 0.02
Whey Protein 1.94 0.03
Fibersol-2 1.26 0.03
Wanted to make waste strength
commensurate with field wastes
Only bulk waste water
characterization of FSE wastewater
exists
COD, BOD, TSS
Data suggests 3000 mg COD/L
may be a reasonable influent
strength
Created synthetic wastes around
suspected food types (simple sugars,
starch, fiber, and proteins)
Task 3 Food Matrix Interference
Flour
Whey Protein
Task 3 Food Matrix Interference
Sucrose +Lard
Corn Starch +
Lard
Fiber +Lard
Lard
% Recovery
93.42.9%
93.52.3%
92.61.1%
94.80.7%
Results:
No statistical difference
was with these surrogate
food wastes
(p-value =0.5925)
Under-recovery was still
noted

Ducoste et al. Research
Measurement of FOG in Food-Laden Waste
Unreliable FOG measurements observed with (liquid-liquid
extraction with n-hexane)
Investigated variability and interference for constituents
expected in food-laden wastes
Results
No significant differences observed in the recovery of FFAs or
FOG material of varying saturation levels
No % Recovery differences was noted between FOG and FFA
standards
Surrogate background materials:
Carbohydrates showed no interference or false-positive readings
Substantial method interference with compounds containing protein
Sample adhesion displayed, on average, around 10% loss in
sample
Liquid-Liquid Extraction of FOG
I. Sample +30 mL n-hexane
Added to separatory funnel
II. Sep. funnel shaken and organic layer
separated for 3x extractions
III. After each extraction, organic
layer is drained through Na
2
SO
4
filter into a boiling flask
IV. Solvent is distilled
in water bath
V. Residual FOG is
cooled and weighed
Issues: Interferences observed when measuring FSE waste
stream with Method 1664:

gel
formation
clog
Na
2
SO
4
(1) gel formation in the
separatory funnel;
(2) gel clogs Na
2
SO
4
filter;
(3) excess Na
2
SO
4
residues in
the boiling flask --
>measurement failed.

Liquid-Liquid Extraction of FOG
Method and Materials: Modified Method 1664
Table 2. Comparison of Method 1664 and the modifications.
EPA Method 1664 Modifications
Extraction Liquid-liquid Extraction (LLE)
Organic
Solvent
n-Hexane
Measurement Gravimetry
Standard Oil Stearic acid
Canola oil,
palmitic acid
Apparatus Separatory funnel
Erlenmeyer flasks,
volumetric pipet
Filtration Yes (Na
2
SO
4
salt) No
Centrifugation No Yes
Clear separation after
centrifugation .
Before After
After extraction, transfer
aqueous layer with pipet
to next flask.
Transfer hexane layer to
centrifugation tube.
Transfer top hexane layer to original flask
and dry to measure the hexane extractable
material (HEM), aka FOG.
hexane
w/gel
water
water
hexane
gel
Method and Materials: Modified Method 1664
Results: Modified Method 1664
Initial Precision and Recovery (IPR) Tests (91 +- 8%):


Table 3. IPR Tests Results of the modifications.
Set
FOG
concentration
(mg/L)
FOG Recovery Rate (%)
Replicates (n=12) Mean
Standard
Deviation
1 40 85 91 96 90 5
2 100 85 89 91 88 4
3 150 84 92 93 90 5
4 200 87 93 102 94 8
Protein Interference Tests:
10 mg of whey protein powder was dissolved in DI water, and
extracted by hexane.
Protein mass balance: amount in 3 phases.



Protein Added
(mg)
Protein Measured (mg)
(a) in solution (b) in gel (c) In hexane (d) Total
1 10.3 7.2 1.9 0.6 9.7
2 10.5 7.1 1.8 0.7 9.6
3 10.4 7.9 2.1 0.4 10.4
4 10.2 8.3 2.3 0.2 10.8
Mean 10.4 7.6 2.0 0.5 10.1
Std 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6
% 100% 74% 20% 5% 99%
Results: Modified Method 1664
FSEs Sample
FOG
(mg/L)
Protein
(mg/L)
Steak House,
Cary, NC
Influent 1392 506
Effluent 147 45
University
Dining Hall,
Raleigh, NC
Influent 461 133
Effluent 330 98
Table 2. FOG concentrations (mg/L) at 3 local restaurants.
FSEs, GI Effluent Lab #1 Lab #2
Steak House, Cary, NC 347 470 138 139
University Dining Hall, Raleigh,
NC
552 564 113 172
Results: Modified Method 1664
Conclusion: Modified Method 1664
The modifications provide an alternative method to
measure FOG when original Method 1664 fails.

Results show acceptable recovery and precision.

The modifications is approved to overcome the
protein interferences.


Revitalization of Cities have fueled significant growth
Collection system
How does change in urban landscape change FOG spatial
discharge rate?


Collection system
Pretreatment Coordinators perform routine
maintenance to clean up pipes that have accumulated
FOG and other debris

They identify hotspots where there is a high risk of an
SSO to occur

Due to the ever changing urban landscape, it becomes
difficult to anticipate FOG deposit related SSOs due
to the changing wastewater quality

Collection system
Objective
To determine the critical hotspots for a given area using matlab
based program to assist municipal pretreatment coordinators to
plan future periodic maintenance of the sewer collection
system due to dynamic changes in the urban landscape.
CITYDRAIN 2.0.3, an open source software integrated within
MATLAB/Simulink, is used to simulate the accumulation of FOG
deposits.
Model incorporates fluid and contaminant transport, chemical
reactions, and a mechanisms for accumulation on pipe walls

Collection system
CITYDRAIN 2.0.3 makes use of Muskingum method of flood
routing



where V =Velocity of water, m/sec
QI & QE =Inflow and Outflow of water in a pipe segment, respectively, m/sec
K & X =Muskingum parameter for prismatic & wedge storage, respectively

Collection system
FOG deposit reaction kinetics

Rate of Hydrolysis
r
FOGT
=k
Tri
[T
Tri
]

where

k
Tri
= rate constant of triglyceride
[T
Tri
] =concentration of Triglyceride (moles/ L)

Rate of Saponificiation
r
saponification
=k
s
[Ca
2+
] [FFA]
2

where ks =rate constant of saponification

[Ca
2+
] =Concentration of Calcium ( moles/ L)
[FFA] =Concentration of Free Fatty Acid ( moles/ L)


Collection system
FOG deposit reaction kinetics
Rate of Aggregation and breakup
r
AGG
=k
a
..S
L
.S
W
r
BR =
k
BR
S
w

where k
a
=rate constant of aggregation
= Shear Rate which is given by (4.Q)/P.R
h
2

S
L
=concentration of the saponified solid in the liquid
S
W
=concentration of the saponified solid on the wall
k
BR
=rate of breakup

Sensitivity Analysis is conducted on the model to determine
the changes in the hotspots location by varying the kinetic
rate constants.
Collection system
Simulink Graphical Interface is as shown:







Collection system
Input for the model:






FSE and background wastewater flow rate were calculated
based on a scour velocity of 2.5 ft/sec and from Aziz et al,
2012, respectively.

FSE Water
Run Time Triglyceride Ca
2+
Ca
2+

7 days 200 ppm 50 ppm 50 ppm
Flow Rate 0.0358 m
3
/sec 0.0041 m
3
/sec
Collection system
A segment of a system modeled in CITYDRAIN 2.0.3 is
shown:
Collection system
Results
Hotspots were initially determined by the time rate of
change of FOG deposit accumulation at the wall.

y =0.0343x - 0.0006
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

F
O
G

d
e
p
o
s
i
t
s

a
t

w
a
l
l

(
p
p
m
)

Time (days)
Time rate of change of FOG deposit accumulation at the
wall
Collection system
Results
Assumption :
Locations in the sewer system where rate of FOG
deposit is high would be the potential hotspots of
concern

Simulated hotspots were compared with the GIS and
maintenance information that reported:
Frequency of cleaning a pipe segment
SSOs resulting from FOG deposit accumulation.
Collection system
Results
The predicted SSOs were in reasonable spatial agreement
with the reported SSO locations.


Additional hotspots predicted by model
Hotspots predicted by model in agreement with maintenance
Collection system
Results
Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine whether there were
changes in the locations of hotspots due to the changes in kinetic rate
constant k
Tri
,

k
s
, k
a
, and k
br
.

Based on the sensitivity analysis, it was determined :
Most Sensitive: k
s

Least Sensitive: k
br

Rate constants were simulated over a range based on the lab FOG
deposit formation rate studies.

For a set of rate constants
k
Tri
=4.40894E-05
k
a
=0.000350249
k
s
=2.94932E-05
k
br
=10
-20




Collection system
Results
Impact of a dynamic changes in urban landscape
Location of new FSEs
Location of old FSEs
Research related to Sewer collection system
Factors that influence Kinetics of FOG Deposit
formation
Confirmation of Microbial Induced Concrete
Corrosion on FOG deposit formation rate
Alternative Technologies and strategies for Enhanced
FOG separation
Use of FOG in anaerobic co-digestion for enhanced
biogas production
Modeling of Anaerobic Digesters (Impact of FOG
laden waste stream)
Assessment of Alternative Herbicides for Roots
Intrusion
And much much more

Reports and papers:
Journal Peer Reviewed Papers:
FOG Related (Published or Under Review):
Iasmin, M., Dean, L., Lappi, S., Ducoste, J ., 2013, Factors that influence FOG deposit formation in sewer collection systems, Water Research,
Under Review
Dominic, C., Szakasits, M., Dean, L., Ducoste, J ., 2013, Understanding the Spatial Formation and Accumulation of Fats, Oils, and Grease
Deposits in the Sewer Collection System, Waster Science and Technology, in press
He, X., Iasmin, M., Dean, L., Lappi, S., de los Reyes, F.L., Ducoste, J ., 2013, Mechanisms of Fat, Oil, and Grease Deposit Formation in Sewer
Lines, Water Research, 47(13):4451-4459
Long, H., Aziz, T., de los Reyes, F. L., Ducoste, J ., 2012, Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Fat, Oil, and Grease (FOG): A Review of Gas Production and
Process Limitations, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 90(3),pp. 231-245
Aziz, T., Keener, K., Holt, L., Groninger, J ., Ducoste, J .J ., 2012, Field Characterization Of Grease Abatement Devices, Water Environment
Research, 84(3), 237-246
He, X., Iasmin, M., Dean, L., Lappi, S., Ducoste, J ., de los Reyes, F.L., 2011, Evidence for fat, oil and grease (FOG) deposit formation
mechanisms in sewer lines, Environmental Science and Technology, 45(10):4385-91
Gallimore, E., Aziz, T., Mohvahed, Z., Ducoste, J ., 2011 Assessment of Internal and External Grease Interceptor Performance for Removal of
Food Based Fats, Oil, and Grease from Food Service Establishments, Water Environment Research, 83(9):882-92
Aziz, T., Keener, K., Holt, L., Ducoste, J .J ., 2010, Evaluating Design Configurations of Grease Interceptor using computational Fluid Dynamics,
J ournal of Environmental Engineering ASCE, 137(1), pp. 84-92
Keener, K.K., Ducoste, J .J ., Holt, L. M., 2008, Properties Influencing FOG Deposit Formation, Water Environment Research, 80(12):2241-6

Acknowledgements
Research Sponsors: Water Environment Research
Foundation, ALTRIA Research Grant, NCSTATE, Washington
Suburban Sanitation Commission, NC Water Resources
Research Institute, Environmental Protection agency STAR
Grant
Research Team: Dr. Kevin Keener (Purdue University), Dr.
J ohn Groninger (Southern Illinois University), Leon Holt (Town
of Cary), Donald Smith, Mark Lovitt, Perry J oyner (Town of
Cary), Barbara Oslund, Heather Mackell (Solutions-IES) , Dr.
Tarek Aziz, Erin Gallimore, Colleen Bowker, Ojochide
Idichaba, Akinawale Omofoye, J ustin Woods, Dennis Metcalf,
J ames McCann, Megan Szakasits, Mahbuba Iasmin, Yi
Wang, Chris Dominic, Richard J enny, J ean Aoussou, Dr.
Francis de los Reyes (NC STATE)
Ducoste Contact Info:
J oel Ducoste, PhD
Department of Civil, Construction, and
Environmental Engineering
208 Mann Hall CB 7908
Raleigh NC 27695
jducoste@ncsu.edu