Technical Advisory Group Meeting Florida Atlantic University Funded - PDF document

Technical Advisory Group Meeting Florida Atlantic University Funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (HCSHWM) DATE: Friday, March 18, 2016 TIME: 2:00 pm to 3:50 pm WHERE: CM Building (22), Room 125 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431 MEETING AGENDA 2:00 – 2:10 pm Opening Address and Introduction of Participants D. Meeroff 2:10 – 2:40 pm Leachate Collection System Clogging B. Shaha 2:40 – 3:10 pm Safe Discharge of Landfill Leachate to the Environment J. Lakner 3:10 – 3:40 pm Investigation of Effective Odor Control Strategies J. Roblyer M. Vidovic 3:40 – 3:50 pm Open Forum Participants 3:50 pm Adjourn, Thank You D. Meeroff Attendance: Tim Vinson, Joseph Lakner, Julia Roblyer, Mateja Vidovic, Eve Walecki, Damaris Lugo, David Cowan, Peng Yi, Dan Meeroff, Bishow Nath Shaha, Jeff Roccapriore, Craig Ash, Owrang Kashef, Mark Eyeington, Neil Coffman 1. Opening address by D. Meeroff followed by introduction of the group members and participants (2:05 pm) 2. B. Shaha gave a presentation on the Flowmark antiscaling system. He described the history of the leachate clogging system including soluble calcium data that led to the idea of conducting a field scale model experiment. He presented water quality results from preliminary experiments in which pH, conductivity, and alkalinity and calcium (soluble vs. total) were not statistically different from the flowmark to the control side in triplicate tests. This led to the hypothesis that crystalline structure of solids collected from treated vs. untreated side may be different in XRD/XRF. First pure samples of calcite and aragonite were obtained and analyzed. A method of library database spectral matching with Rietveld refinement was used to identify the substance and applied to historical samples collected from the SWA prior to dilution and flowmark installation. However, no solids were collected from the field scale model in longterm tests, only biological slime. The next experiment involved filling a 5000-gallon tanker with leachate and letting it drain into the field scale model pipe network over several days. This resulted in rapid clogging of the 1-inch flowmeters, which were eventually removed. In the latest tests, solids were collected from the spool pieces and are currently being prepped for XRD/XRF analysis to check for differences. Shaha plans to repeat the experiment 3 more times. Cowan asked for explanation of theoretical graph of XRD spectrum. Vinson asked about where the solids were collected [in the HDPE spool piece], and about how the flow regime was different between longterm pumping test and the tanker test [8-13 gpm in longterm test, but unknown in tanker test]. Shaha determined to measure the flowrate in the next experiments to be able to calculate a residence time. Also water quality data from

the tanker load was not collected in the first experiment, and Shaha determined to collect initial and final water quality data on subsequent experiments. Cowan asked in any solids were collected in the PVC pipe sections, and Shaha replied that none were because the HDPE spool piece was designed to be at the lowest point in the system to encourage precipitation to occur there. Vinson asked how long the leachate sat in the spool piece segment stagnant, and Shaha replied that he would devise a way to determine that in the next experiment. Meeroff mentioned that the way the truck is configured, solids deposited in the truck after loading are the first things to enter the pipe network leading to rapid clogging. Vinson suggested stirring the leachate in the truck somehow. 3. J. Roblyer and M. Vidovic gave a presentation on nuisance odor project. They introduced the topic, how odors are characterized, identified different odor compounds, described odor detection/monitoring strategies and factors that impact odor intensity, and identified several case studies. Roblyer described the protein binding experiments to create a new odor detection monitoring system. Clone of odorant binding protein 2A has been obtained today, so experiments to synthesize the protein can begin shortly. Ash asked that Task 1-3 be described. Cowan asked if incineration of MSW leads to odors [students said they would consult with WM and SWA]. Ash asked if multiple sources could be distinguished by this technology [remains to be seen]. Lugo asked if initial experiments will be conducted with pure substances, will it work with mixtures in the field [that is the experiment that will be conducted], so which compounds will be tested first? [Vidovic showed a table]. Vinson asked if fluorescent label will be located near the binding site and if not bound will the protein fluoresce. Lugo asked if there are similar products that use enzymes which are proprietary. She believes there are similar items on the market today; however Roblyer explained that those are for metabolizing odors not detection/capture systems like the technology described here. Cowan asked if there would be a specific fluorescence response for different compounds [it remains to be seen but is technically possible to have a different signature based on changes in protein morphology or multiple fluorescent labels or color changes]. Vinson recommended fluorescence flow cell similar to an HPLC detector for the proposed vacuum chamber. 4. J. Lakner presented his work on advanced oxidation of leachate from partially closed landfill leachates for beneficial reuse of this water as a resource. He discussed regulations and water quality targets for 3 different reuse applications. Then he explained how the UV/TiO 2 and EMOH processes work, and then he presented pilot testing results. First he verified the reaction mechanism, then he ran tests to determine the effect of catalyst aids (semiconductor doping), but none performed better than UV/TiO 2 . Then he showed results using different lamps and reactor configurations. Comparing the lamp power of the two types of lamps in different wavelength regimes, they were found to have similar output. The falling film reactor configuration was shown to be the most efficient design, and aeration was determined to be important for ammonia removal/conversion. The more catalyst, the higher the calcium removal and the lower the alkalinity removal. This suggested an adsorption process at play. Reactor kinetics tests revealed non-psuedo first order behavior contrary to previous published results. 48 hours tests did not follow the predicted removal from first order model. The kinetics appeared to have 5 components. The fastest reaction was the k3 reaction. More testing is required to determine the nature of this component. Next pretreatment results were presented and BOD/COD ratio showed evidence of complete mineralization. Finally a cost analysis was presented, which showed that an understanding of the k3 reaction would allow for more effective operation. Ash asked how this process would be implemented [as a series of sequencing batch reactors]. Cowan asked why the k3 reaction is so fast [catalyst clumping due to magnetic forces in the initial reaction caused the particle size of the titanium catalyst to increase 10-fold due to self-attraction, which may have limited mass transfer to the reaction sites and reduced the efficiency (lower surface area to volume ratio), so it was recommended to conduct TEM analysis]. Lakner also mentioned that once the catalyst dries, it reverts back to its initial particle size, which would complicate microscopic analysis. Vinson said there are known reagents that measure

reaction efficiency, and Lakner responded that crystal violet tests were conducted to verify the reaction mechanism. A discussion of reaction mechanisms occurring in the k3 zone determined that ammonia and COD removal are most affected, concentration of catalyst caused blocking of light and diminishing returns and also UV light is absorbed by leachate constituents as well. 5. Dr. Meeroff thanked all of the participants, and the meeting was adjourned at 4:06 pm.