See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275336496

Nitrate Treatability Study

Research · April 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4898.2565

CITATIONS READS
0 2,098

1 author:

Zach raymond-becker
Shannon and Wilson, Seattle, United States
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Zach raymond-becker on 22 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

FINAL REPORT
Nitrate Treatability Study

DECEMBER 12, 2013

NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY
Bero Engineering LLC
Final Report: Nitrate Treatability Study
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Project Background ............................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3.2 Nitrate in Drinking Water....................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.3 Impacts Due to Nitrate in Drinking Water ......................................................................................... 5
2.0 Synthetic Water for Experiments ................................................................................................................... 5
3.0 Technology Selection ......................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Contaminated Water Description ...................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Technology Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.1 Ion Exchange .............................................................................................................................................. 7
3.2.2 Membrane Filtration ................................................................................................................................. 7
3.2.3 Biological Denitrification ......................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.4 Chemical Denitrification ........................................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Technology Advantages and Disadvantages .................................................................................................. 8
3.4 Engineering Analysis of Nitrate Removal Technologies ............................................................................ 8
3.4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Nitrate Removal Technologies .............................................................. 9
3.5 Selected Technology ........................................................................................................................................... 11
4.0 Flow Through and Batch Experiments ....................................................................................................... 11
4.1 Flow Through Experiment Results ................................................................................................................ 13
4.2 Batch Experiment Results ................................................................................................................................. 15
5.0 Scale Up Calculations ....................................................................................................................................... 15
6.0 Recommended System Configuration .......................................................................................................... 16
6.1 Option A ................................................................................................................................................................. 17
6.2 Option B ................................................................................................................................................................. 17
7.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 18
Reference List................................................................................................................................................................... 20

1
1.0 Introduction
This document is the final report for the Nitrate Treatability Study (NTS) for domestic single family
style well drinking water delivery systems. The NTS is funded by Bero Engineering LLC and is
administered by the Environmental Engineering department at Northern Arizona University. This
report details the NTS project background, technology selection, synthetic water for experiments, scale
up calculations, and recommended system configuration. The project shows the process of selecting a
technology, applying the technology in a laboratory setting on a small scale, and providing
recommended system configurations to meet the project constraints and criteria developed in the
project proposal.

1.2 Purpose
Dr. Bridget Bero, The Chair of the Civil and Environmental Engineering program at Northern Arizona
University has made a request for the study of nitrate removal technologies. The goal of the study is to
select a nitrate treatment technology to treat groundwater for nitrate contamination in single family
households in the United States of America who get drinking water from a contaminated aquifer via a
well. Nitrate contaminated aquifers are common in areas where there is agricultural activity. Currently
there are very limited options on the market for nitrate treatment systems for small scale applications.

The project will be considered a success if the following constraints and criteria are met.

Project Criteria:

 Concentration of modeled groundwater is 20 mg/L NO3-N and 40 mg/L SO4

 Flow rate of modeled groundwater is 0.2 gallons per minute

Project Constraints:

 The recommended system must have a short implementation time

 The recommended system must be cost effective due to limited economic support for small
private water treatment systems
 The recommended system will remove at least 80% of the initial concentration of nitrate
 The recommended system must have a service period of at least 1 month
 The recommended system must be low maintenance

1.3 Project Background

Agricultural activities have been shown to cause nitrate contamination in shallow groundwater aquifers
as shown in a recent nationwide study. The study shows that concentrations of nitrate over 1 mg/L or 1
ppm indicate human activity (Dubrovsky, 2010). Citizens who employ a private well drinking water
delivery system who live in areas with nearby agricultural activity are in danger of the negative health
effects associated with nitrate contaminated groundwater. The EPA is Responsible for determining safe
levels of nitrate at which no negative health effects are likely, as informed by the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) which calls for Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 mg/L NO3-N (US EPA –
Drinking Water MCL, 2013).

2
1.3.2 Nitrate in Drinking Water
Nitrogen is the most abundant element in the atmosphere as it comprises 80% of air (Haller, 1999).
Gaseous nitrogen is found in many forms, the major ones being N2, N2O, NO, NO2, NO3 and NH3. Some
of these gases readily react with rain water, or surface water, to produce nitrate and ammonium ions.
These ions become part of the soil layer, eventually permeating through into groundwater aquifers
creating a natural background concentration of nitrate and ammonium ions in shallow groundwater
aquifers. Described in Figure 1 blow are some sources of groundwater nitrate contamination in
agricultural areas.

Figure 1: Sources of Nitrate in groundwater in areas of agricultural activity (Portage, 2013)

The sizes of the red arrows in Figure 1 are proportional to the severity of the sources contribution to
nitrate contamination in groundwater. As seen in Figure 1, sources for nitrate contamination include
leaking septic tanks, ineffective septic leach fields, surface water runoff containing chemical fertilizers
and pesticides, animal manure, and erosion of natural deposits (Portage, 2013). Some nitrate also enters
water from the atmosphere, which carries nitrogen-containing compounds derived from automobiles,
coal-fired generating units and other sources (US EPA - Basic Information about Nitrates, 2011).

3
Groundwater harvested in the United States of America from domestic single family style well drinking
water delivery systems may be contaminated by nitrate. A large portion of the United States of America
uses groundwater as its main source of drinking water. Groundwater availability varies geographically,
but many properties have aquifers that can supply drinking water to single family households.

Figure 2: Areas of the United States with the highest risk for contamination of shallow groundwater by nitrate
(Dubrovsky, 2010)
Nitrogen contamination is more of a problem in shallow aquifers therefor it is necessary to be aware of
aquifers in the United States that would be more at risk for nitrogen contamination (Perlman, 2012).
The United States Geological Survey (Dubrovsky, 2010) study developed the map seen in Figure 2. The
map shows areas of the United States with risk for nitrate contamination of shallow groundwater
aquifers.

Single family households that ingest nitrate at a concentration above 10 mg/L NO3-N are considered to
be at risk by the (US EPA – Drinking Water MCL, 2013). Undetectable to our senses, nitrate has no
color, taste or smell at concentrations observed in drinking water supplies. Nitrate does not cause
discoloration of plumbing fixtures and does not affect laundering or other non-potable domestic water
uses. Nitrates present in a water supply can be indication of other contaminants in that source of water
(DeSilva, 2003).

4
1.3.3 Impacts Due to Nitrate in Drinking Water
Approximately 15% of Americans who live in the United States rely on a personal water supply to
provide drinking water for their household. The majority of domestic single family-style wells draw
from groundwater as their primary source of drinking water. The USGS estimated 98% of self-supplied
drinking water is from groundwater wells (Kenny, 2009). Furthermore, the USGS documented nitrate
levels above MCL under SDWA in over 20% of shallow drinking water wells in agriculture areas of the
United States (Stewart, 2012).

In humans, too much nitrate can cause a restriction of oxygen transport in the blood stream. Infants
younger than 6 months of age lack the enzyme necessary to remedy the condition thereby acquiring
Methaemoglobinemia commonly known as “blue baby syndrome” (US EPA - Basic Information About
Nitrates, 2011). Pregnant woman and children less than 1 year of age should never drink water
contaminated with nitrate. Nitrate has also been shown to cause shortness of breath in some adults with
weakened immune systems and elderly.

2.0 Synthetic Water for Experiments

The purpose of the Synthetic Water for Experiments is to mimic contaminated groundwater. The
synthetic water will be used to confirm the selected technologies ability to meet the goal of the NTS
project in the laboratory. Raw water from Flagstaff Arizona’s Lake Mary groundwater treatment
facility was chosen as the base of the Synthetic Water for Experiments with the selected technology.
Lake Mary groundwater was selected for the following reasons:

 The Lake Mary water treatment plant provided a water analysis of the Lake Mary groundwater
so there was no need to conduct an analysis of the raw water
 Lake Mary groundwater contains contaminants common to many groundwater aquifers used
for drinking water

See Table 1 on the next page for the raw groundwater analysis from the Lake Mary treatment facility.
Although the raw Lake Mary groundwater is similar to many groundwater aquifers, the concentration
of nitrate was well below the project constrained modeled water concentration of 20 mg/L NO3-N and
40 mg/L SO4. To add a bit of a factor of safety over the modeled water concentration levels the
concentrations in the synthetic water where increased to 26 mg/L NO3-N and 40 mg/L SO4 by adding
sodium nitrate (Na-NO3) and sodium sulfate (Na2-SO4) to the Lake Mary groundwater. The modified
Lake Mary groundwater is considered to be the Synthetic Water for Experiments. See Table 2 on the
next page for the theoretical analysis of the Synthetic Water for Experiments.

5
Table 1: Lake Mary Raw Groundwater

Table 1 above shows the raw water analysis from the Lake Mary treatment facilities’ groundwater well.
Notice that the nitrate concentration is 0.2 mg/L NO3 and 0.3 mg/L SO4. To convert from mg/L NO3
to mg/L NO3-N multiple by a factor of (1/4.42). Table 2 below shows the water theoretical water
analysis for the Synthetic Water for Experiments.

Table 2: Synthetic Water for Experiments

Table 2 above shows the Synthetic Water for Experiments. Notice that the nitrate concentration has
increased to 114.5 mg/L as NO3 or 26 mg/L as NO3-N and the sulfate concentration has increased to 40
mg/L SO4. The concentration of sodium has increased significantly due to the addition of sodium
nitrate and sodium sulfate with the increase of the concentration of nitrate and sulfate. Also notice that
the total anions and cations increase with the addition of sodium nitrate and sodium sulfate. The
laboratory protocol for making the Synthetic Water for Experiments from Lake Mary groundwater can
be found in Appendix 4.

3.0 Technology Selection

The purpose of this technology selection was to choose a technology for treatment of nitrate in domestic
single family style well drinking water delivery systems. The technology was selected based on
advantages and disadvantages of 5 major treatment options. The 5 major treatment options are ion
exchange, reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, biological denitrification, and chemical deniftrication (Jensen,

6
2012). For the purposes of this report reverse osmosis and electrodialysis will be grouped together
under the technology membrane filtration because both of these technologies use a membrane as their
primary treatment mechanism. The primary source of information for the selection of the nitrate
removal technology was the Technical Report 6: Drinking Water Treatment for Nitrate prepared for the
California Nitrate Project by the Center for Watershed Science at the University of California, Davis.

3.1 Contaminated Water Description

A single family household is 1 of the many that obtains drinking water from a well. The well is tapping
into 1 of the many aquifers contaminated with nitrate. The selected technology for the NTS project will
need to be able to treat contaminated water with the concentration equal to the concentrations seen in
Table 2: Synthetic Water for Experiments.

3.2 Technology Introduction

In the subsections below ion exchange, membrane filtration, biological denirification and chemical
dentrification are introduced.

3.2.1 Ion Exchange

Ion exchange is a reversible reaction in which a charged ion (for the NTS project nitrate) in
solution is exchanged for a similarly charged ion. The charged ion in solution will then be stuck
to an immobile solid particle called a resin. Ion exchange is generally used for water softening
but can be used to remove salts like nitrate. Ion exchange technology is used in individual
homes and wastewater treatment plants (Davis, P. 333, 2011).

3.2.2 Membrane Filtration

Reverse Osmosis and electrodialisis are membrane processes that use the difference of the
permeability of water constituents as a separation technique. In reverse osmosis the water
migrates across the membrane due to a concentration gradient generated by osmotic pressure
leaving a concentrated form of the contamination on one side and clean water the other side. In
electodialylis an electrical current is used in conjunction with a membrane to desalinated water
by separating the ions in the water. Both membrane process produces a desalinated water
stream and a concentrated salt waste stream (Davis, P. 369, 2011). In our case the concentrated
salt stream would be nitrate.

3.2.3 Biological Denitrification

Denitrification consists of a sequence of enzymatic reactions leading to the evolution of nitrogen
gas. Biological denitrification occurs naturally when certain bacteria uses nitrate as there
terminal electron acceptor in the repertory system in the absence of oxygen (SOARES, P. 2,
2000). The process involves the formation of a few nitrogen intermediates presented below.

𝑁𝑂3− → 𝑁𝑂2− → 𝑁𝑂 → 𝑁2 𝑂 → 𝑁2

Treatment of the water can take place in the aquifer or above ground in large reactors. The
denitrifying bacteria require suitable carbon and energy source to thrive. The bacteria may be
difficult to stabilize.

7
 3.2.4 Chemical Denitrification
Chemical denitrification uses metals to transform nitrate into other nitrogen species like
nitrogen gas. Chemical denitrification is a relatively new technology so there are no full scale
systems for the treatment of drinking water for nitrate contamination in the United States of
America (Jensen, P.9, 2012). So far the application of chemical denitrification for removal of
nitrate in drinking water is limited to pilot or bench scale. Chemical denitrification has the
potential to become a feasible option for the NTS project but will require a lot of time and
money to implement.

3.3 Technology Advantages and Disadvantages

The general advantages and disadvantages, with respect to nitrate treatment, of the 5 major nitrate
removal technologies: ion exchange, reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, biological denitrification, and
chemical deniftrication will be presented in this section of the NTS report. Electrodialysis and reverse
osmosis will be clumped together under the technology membrane filtration for the rest of this report
because they both use membranes as there nitrate treatment mechanism. The table in Appendix 1 was
obtained from The Technical Report 6: Drinking Water Treatment for Nitrate and presents the advantages
and disadvantages of the 5 major treatment options with respect to nitrate treatment in drinking water.
The Technical Report 6: Drinking Water Treatment for Nitrate was select for the primary source of
information for the technology selection component of the NTS project because the purpose of the
report was “…to provide a detail guide to the current state of nitrate treatment alternatives that can be
used as a reference tool for the drinking water community.” (Jensen, P.1, 2012).

3.4 Engineering Analysis of Nitrate Removal Technologies

The Technology Evaluation Criteria have been generated to be used in the evaluation of the 4 major
nitrate removal technology alternatives. Each of the alternatives will be rated with respect to the
evaluation criteria from 1 to 5 (1 being low and 5 being high).

The technology will be considered good if the technology scores well in a decision matrix with the
following Technology Evaluation Criteria: Size, Cost, Waste Stream, Complexity, Resource Demand
and Efficiency. Below is a list that describes the Technology Evaluation Criteria used to evaluate the 4
major types nitrate treatment technologies.

Technology Evaluation Criteria:

Size, the nitrate removal system will have to fit into a shed, garage or small outbuilding. A score of 1 in
this field means that the technology requires a lot of space. A score of 5 in this field means the design
will easily fit in a small space.

Cost, The operation cost and the initial investment cost will be important because the small farming
community is expected to have limited economic support. A score of 1 means that that the
operation/installation cost of the technology is relatively high with respect to the other technologies
being evaluated. A score of 5 means that the operational/installation cost is relatively high with respect
to the other technologies being evaluated.

8
Waste Stream, it is important to have a waste stream that is easily managed. A score of 1 in this
evaluation criteria means the waste stream generated by the technology will be hard to dispose of. A
score of 5 means the waste stream is easily disposed of.

Complexity, the complexity of the technology will be evaluated to required time necessary to evaluate
technology in the lab. A technology will receive a score estimate of 1 if that technology is very complex
and requires hard to use equipment to analyze. A technology will receive a score estimate of 5 if that
technology is simple and requires relatively simple equipment to analyze.

Resource Demand, the amount of resources (electricity or other) required to operate the technology
will be estimated. A score of 1 will reflect a system that uses a lot of resources to operate. A score of 5
will reflect a system that requires very few resources to operate.

Efficiency, the efficiency of the system will be considered to be the resource demand in kilograms per
nitrate as nitrogen removed in kilograms. A score of 1 means that the efficiency as stated above is
relatively high when compared to the other technologies. A score of 5 means that the efficiency is
relatively low when compared to the other technologies.

3.4.1 Evaluation of Alternative Nitrate Removal Technologies

Each of the 4 major nitrate treatment technologies will evaluated using a decision matrix in this
section. Each technology will be given a rated using the Technology Evaluation Criteria and Appendix
1. The Technology Evaluation Criteria all have the same weight. The ratings will be stored in the
decision matrix. The ratings for all Technology Evaluation Criteria will be summed for each of the
nitrate treatment technologies. The highest scoring technology will be the technology that best fits
the technology evaluation criteria. Table 3: Decision Matrix on the next page presents the decision
matrix for the NTS project.

Table 3: Decision Matrix

Waste Resource
Treatment Technology Size Cost Complexity Efficiency Total
Stream Demand
Ion Exchange 4 5 2 5 4 3 23
Membrane Filtration 5 1 2 1 2 3 14
Biological Denitrification 1 1 4 1 5 3 15
Chemical Denitrification 3 2 5 2 4 3 19

Table 3 above shows the total score of the sum of all the Technology Evaluation Criteria for each
treatment technology. The reason behind each sore is explained below.

The Ion exchange technology has been evaluated using Appendix 1 from The Technical Report 6:
Drinking Water Treatment for Nitrate. Ion exchange received a score of 4 for the size because it is
used in large and small systems. For NTS the treatment system is considered small. Ion exchange
received a score of 4 for cost because ion exchange is financially feasible. Ion exchange received a

9
score of 2 for waste stream because you have to dispose of the brine recharge solution that contains
nitrate. Ion exchange received a score of 4 for complexity because there is a lot of information about
how it works and good documentation on ion exchange from vendors. Ion exchange received a score
of 4 for resource demand because you need a lot of sodium chloride to create the brine recharge
solution. Ion exchange received a score of 3 for efficiency because the system requires addition pump
power and sodium chloride for operation.

The membrane filtration (reverse osmosis and electrodialysis) technology has been evaluated using
Appendix 1 from The Technical Report 6: Drinking Water Treatment for Nitrate. Membrane filtration
received a score of 5 for size because it fits a small foot print and is good for small POU applications.
Membrane filtration received a score of 1 for cost because it is typical for membrane filtration
systems to have high capital and operation and maintenance costs. Membrane filtration received a
score of 2 for the waste stream because the waste stream is high concentrated and may need special
handling for disposal. Membrane filtration received a score of 1 for complexity because membrane
filtration systems are highly complex. Membrane filtration received a score of 2 for resource
demand because membrane systems have a high energy demand. Membrane filtration received a
score of 3 for efficiency because the resulting treated effluent is of a high quality but the required
centricity to operate the system is high.

The biological denitrification technology has been evaluated using Appendix 1 from The Technical
Report 6: Drinking Water Treatment for Nitrate. Biological denitrifcation received a score of 1 for size
because systems required a large footprint. Biological denitrification received a score of 1 for cost
because it requires a high capital cost. Biological denitrification received a score of 4 for waste
stream because the system will produce a low amount of sludge waste. Biological denitrification
received a score of 1 for complexity because a high level of monitoring and significant post
treatment requirements are needed as well as a high system complexity similar to membrane
filtration. Biological denitrification received a score of 5 for resource demand because limited
chemical input is required. Biological denitrification received a score of 3 for efficiency even though
low chemical input is required there are a lot of man hours required to operate a biological
denitrification system.

The chemical denitrification technology has been evaluated using Appendix 1 from The Technical
Report 6: Drinking Water Treatment for Nitrate. Chemical denitrification received a score of 3 for size
because a chemical denitrification system does not take a large amount of space. Chemical
denitrification received a score of 2 for cost because the reliability of the system and the
implementation cost is unknown. Chemical denitrification received a 5 for waste stream because
there is no brine regenerations solution of concentrated waste stream associated with this
technology. Chemical denitrification received a score of 2 for complexity because of a large number
of unknowns like lack of reliability and operating complication information as well as possible
partial denitrification. Chemical denitrification received a score of 4 in resource demand because you
need some but not a lot of resources to run a chemical denitrification system. Chemical
denitrification received a score of 4 for efficiency because of the possibility of partial denitrification.

10
3.5 Selected Technology
The resulting scores from the decision matrix evaluating the nitrate removal technologies give ion
exchange the highest score. There are 2 options for types of ion exchange resin for removal of nitrate
from water. The first type is a non-selective strong base anion exchange resin. The second type is a
selective strong base anion exchange resin (PuroLite – Choosing an ion exchange system for nitrate
removal, 2013). A selective resin was chosen for this project because it is common for there to be
competing ions present in groundwater that do not need to be removed because they are not at levels
harmful to human health as suggested by SDWA. If the competing ions are removed with a non-
selective resin the exchange capacity for nitrate is lowered. A lower exchange capacity converts to a
larger required ion exchange bed volume to remove the same amount of nitrate. Thus, a selective strong
base anion exchange resin fits the NTS project

Purolite is a producer of all varieties of ion exchange resins. The Purolite application guide for choosing
an ion exchange system for nitrate removal was used to further select a resin (PuroLite – Choosing an
ion exchange system for nitrate removal, 2013). See the reference list at the end of this document for a
link to a pdf version of the application guide for choosing an ion exchange system for nitrate removal
from Purolite. A520E resin was selected out of the 13 resin options presented by Purolite in the
application guide because it is a nitrate selective strong base anion exchange resin and because it has
relatively low nitrate leakage amount when compared to the other Purolite selective strong base anion
exchange resins. The Engineering Bulletin for the Purolite A520E resin contains technical information
on the resin and can be found in Appendix 2. The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Purolite
A520E shows that the hazards for the resin are very low and can be found in Appendix 3.

4.0 Flow Through and Batch Experiments

Flow through and a Batch laboratory experiments where constructed. The purpose of the laboratory
experiments is to evaluate the resin to ensure the resin behaves as stated in the Engineering Bulletin by
Purolite in Appendix 2. In the Flow Through Experiment the difference in the initial and final
concentration of the Synthetic Water for Experiments was analyzed with respect to the amount of water
treated in the Flow Through Experiment. In the Batch Experiment the initial and final concentration of
the Synthetic Water for Experiments was analyzed for each batch with respect to the amount of resin
added to each batch and the volume of Synthetic Water for Experiments in each batch.

The primary goal of the Flow Through Experiment is to prove that the A520E resin behaves
consistently after reaching capacity and being recharged. The secondary goal of the flow through
experiment is to develop Freundlich parameters to create a solid phase capacity for the A520E resin.
The primary goal of the batch experiments is to create more Freundlich parameters to compare with the
parameters generated in the flow through experiment. Purolites guide to laboratory testing of ion
exchange and adsorbent resins and was used to create the Flow Through experiment. Due to time
constraints the recommended bed volume as stated in the Purolite laboratory testing of ion exchange
and adsorbent resins document was reduced from a minimum of 50 mL to 10 mL and the flow rate in
bed volumes per hour was increased from 500 ml per hour to 2600 ml per hour. The laboratory protocol
for the flow through experiments can be found in Appendix 5.

11
The primary goal of the Batch Experiments was to develop more Freundlich parameters. The
Freundlich parameters from the Flow Through Experiment will be compared to the constants
developed in the Batch Experiment. The Batch Experimental Protocol can be found in Appendix 6. The
laboratory protocol for the batch experiments was developed using an example problem in the Activated
Carbon section Hazardous waste Management by LeGrega and the resin capacity as stated by Purolite
in Appendix 2. The example problem is for activated carbon but because activated carbon and ion
exchange resin are both adsorbents the example problem was adopted for ion exchange. To ensure the
batches reached equilibrium the laboratory protocol was modified to have a longer equilibrium period.
The Batch Experiment was done in 2 batches. Batch 1 is called Experiment 2A and batch 2 is called
Experiment 2B.

The data from all laboratory experiments for the NTS project will be evaluated with a DR 2010
Spectrophotometer. The concentration of nitrate will be determined by the high resolution nitrate as
nitrogen program 355. Cadmium reduction reagents are used to intensify the color of nitrate in water.
Figure 3 below shows a comparison between a blank 25 mL sample and a 25 mL sample with 26 mg/L
NO3-N after the Cadmium reduction reagent has been added to both samples.

Figure 3: Sample Comparison

The sample on the left is the sample with very low nitrate concentrations (below 0.2 mg/L NO3-N) and
the sample on the right is the sample with 26 mg/L NO3-N. The HATCH DR 2010 Spectrophotometer

12
reads the samples by evaluating what wavelengths of light get stuck in the sample and reports a
concentration of mg/L NO3-N. The HACH DR 2010 Spectrophotometer is accurate to plus or minus
0.5 mg/L NO3-N.

4.1 Flow Through Experiment Results

The Flow Through Experiment was a huge success. The exit concentration of nitrate in the Synthetic
Water for Experiments and the volume of treated Synthetic Water for Experiments from the Flow
Through Experiment was used to obtain the primary and secondary goals of the Flow Through
Experiment. Figure 3: A520E Resin Concentration Out is shown below and presents the exit
concentration of NO3-N in mg/L in the 10 mL bed volume column versus time in minutes.

Figure 4: A520E Resin Concentration Out

The data points for each of the 3 cycles of the Flow Through Experiment are almost on top of each
other for all 3 cycles. As time goes on and the 10 mL bed volume removes nitrate from the Synthetic
Water for Experiments the leakage of the resin increases. The leakage of the resin bed increases as the
resin bed reaches. By the time the experiment was over at around 250 minutes the resin bed is at
capacity and can no longer remove any nitrate from the influent Synthetic Water for Experiments. Each
trend line represents 1 cycle of the experiment. The 3 trend lines are almost on top of each other
showing that the resin behaves consistently after reaching capacity and being recharged (1 cycle) and
then reaching capacity again (cycle 2) and again (cycle 3).

13
Fruendlich parameters where generated from the data from the Flow Through Experiment in Appendix
7. The Activated Carbon section of the Hazardous waste Management book by LeGrega was used as a
source of information for generating the Fruendlich Parameters. See Appendix 9 Flow Through Results
and Scale Up pages 1 and 2 for the calculations to get the solid phase concentration (q in ug NO3-N per
mg resin) and concentration out (Cout) of the A520E resin. Figure 4: Linearization of q and Cout is shown
below and presents the linearization of the solid phase concentration (q) and the concentration of the
Synthetic Water for Experiments exiting the 10 mL bed volume column.

Figure 5: Linearization of q and Cout

The equation for the trend line that is match to the linearized solid phase capacity equation below

1
𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝑞) = 𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝐾𝑓 ) + ( ) ∗ 𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑡 )
𝑛

Where Kf and (1/n) are the Freundlich parameters, Log(q) is the y-axis and Log(Cout) is the x-axis.
Matching the resulting equation of the trend line to the equation above Kf is equal to 10^0.9141 or 8.2
and (1/n) is equal to 1.39. The Freundlich parameters are then plugged into the equation to find final
solid phase concentration (qf) for the A520E resin during the Flow Through Experiment. The
Freundlich parameters are then plugged into the equation below to solve for qf, the solid face capacity of
the A520E resin.

14
 1/𝑛
𝑞𝑓 = 𝐾𝑓 ∗ 𝐶𝑂𝑢𝑡 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛

Where the concentration out for the design (Cout design) is the target concentration for the design scale up
and is equal to 2 mg/L. Solving the equation for the final solid phase concentration results in qf=21.5 ug
NO3-N per mg Resin. The final solid phase concentration will be used in the scale up calculations to
determine the required column height to go from initial concentration (Cin design) of 20 mg/L NO3-N and
a final concentration of (Cout design) 2 mg/L while in the presence of 40 mg/L SO4.

4.2 Batch Experiment Results

The results for the Batch Experiment where promising but something went wrong. Experiment 2A data
that is presented in Appendix 8 Batch Experiment Data results in solid phase concentration (q) that do
not make sense. Furthermore the final concentration of Synthetic Water for Experiments for each
volumetric flask was higher for the low mass flasks than the initial concentration of the Synthetic Water
for Experiments. As you can see from the Concentration Data for Experiment 2A table in Appendix 8
Flask number 3 has a final concentration of 28.0 mg/L NO3-N and the initial concentration for the
Synthetic Water for Experiments is 26 mg/L. A possible source for error is that expired HACH
reagents for program 355 on the HACH DR 2010 where used because fresh HACH reagents
disappeared from the laboratory. The old HACH reagents may be the reason for the strange data.

Currently a second Batch Experiment indexed 2B is underway and is awaiting fresh HACH reagents for
the DR 2010 to arrive. Once the reagents arrive the data from Batch Experiment 2B will be analyzed
and Freundlich Parameters will be generated and compared to the Freundlich Parameters generated in
the Flow Through Experiment. It is expected that the results will generated Freundlich Parameters
close in value to the Fruendlich Parameters generated in the Flow Through Experiment. As you can see
in Appendix 8 the final concentration data is missing from the Concentration Data for Experiment 2A
table.

5.0 Scale Up Calculations

Scale up calculations where generated using 2 methods for redundancy. The goal of the scale up
calculations is to optimize a system to the constraints and criteria of the NTS Project in the purpose
section of this report.

The first method is a scale up using the final solid phase capacity (qf) generated from Fruendlich
Parameters from the Flow Through Experiment. The second method is an application of Appendix 2:
The A520 Engineering Bulletin from Purolite which gives guidelines on how to determine how much
resin is required for a certain throughput of modeled contaminated groundwater. Both methods where
calculated in Microsoft Excel and use the Table of Equivalent mass in Appendix 11. Both methods use a
project constrained design period for the scale up calculation of 1 month with a flow rate of 0.2 gallons
per minute.The scale up calculations for the first method can be found on page 4 of Appendix 9. The
initial conditions for the scale up calculation for the first method are presented below:
𝑚𝑔 𝑚𝑔
 𝐶𝑖𝑛 = 20 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁 + 40 𝑆𝑂4
𝐿 𝐿

15
 𝑚𝑔 𝑚𝑔
 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 2.0 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁 + 40 𝑆𝑂4
𝐿 𝐿
 𝑄 = 8640 𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠/𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ
 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 0.85

The resulting required bed volume using the solid phase capacity (qf) is 3.54 ft3 of A520E resin. The
scale up calculations for the second method can be found in Appendix 10. The initial conditions for the
scale up calculation for the second method are presented below:
𝑚𝑔 𝑚𝑔
 𝐶𝑖𝑛 = 20 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁 + 40 𝑆𝑂4
𝐿 𝐿
𝑚𝑔 𝑚𝑔
 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 3.6 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁 + 40 𝑆𝑂4
𝐿 𝐿
 𝑄 = 8640 𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠/𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ
 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 0.85

The resulting required bed volume using the A520E Documentation is 3.50 ft3 of resin and the resulting
concentration out (Cout) using the Figure 2 in Appendix is 3.6 mg/L NO3-N. The resulting
concentration out using was selected as 2 mg/L NO3-N. Both methods result in almost the same size
required bed volume. A design size of 3.50 ft3 was selected as the design size for the recommended
system configuration which is explained in the next section.

6.0 Recommended System Configuration

The purpose of the recommended system configuration is to supply some of the primary calculations for
the implementation of A520E ion exchange nitrate treatment system as well as a basic parts list and
cost estimate. The recommended system configuration uses the scale up calculation inputs and the
A520E Engineering Bulletin. The recommended system configuration calculations can be found on page
2 of Appendix 10. 2 recommended system configurations are provided: Option A and Option B. 2
recommended system configurations are provided to give some variance in system shape and operating
pressure drop. The operating conditions for the recommendation options are presented in Table 4
below.

Table 4: Operation Conditions for Recommendations

16
Table 4 shows the operating conditions for both recommendations options. The design back wash
expansion flow rate and pressure drop was determined using Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix 2. The
volume of backwash, regeneration, and rinse have all been chosen conservatively. The regeneration
cycle should take 60 minutes to set up, 110 minutes to run, and another 60 minutes to clean up. The
waste regeneration solution should be taken to the nearest wastewater treatment plant for disposal as
recommended by Purolite’s A520E Engineering Bulletin in Appendix 2.

6.1 Option A
Option A is the taller option and has a filter body that is 7.5 feet tall and has a 1 foot inside diameter.
The inside volume of the filter body is 60% larger than required to account for the back wash expansion.
An AutoCAD representation of Option A can be found in Appendix 13. The results for the design
calculations for the option A configuration are presented below:

 Service pressure drop: 5.79 to 13.4 PSI depending on temperature

 Backwash flow rate: 2.2 gpm
 Regeneration volume: 105 gallons
 Regeneration brine concentration: 8 lb/ft3
 Suggested operating temp range: 41°F to 120° F

A cost estimate for the system has been made using the parts list presented in Table 5. The parts list
was developed to create the rough cost estimate. All the costs were found on trustworthy online stores
and have been inflated 20%.

Table 5: Basic Parts List for Option A

6.2 Option B
Option B is the shorter wider option and has a filter body that is 3.5 feet tall and has a 1.5 foot inside
diameter. The inside volume of the filter body is 60% larger than required to account for the back wash
expansion. An AutoCAD representation of Option A can be found in Appendix 14. The results for the
design calculations for the Option A configuration are presented below:

17
  Service Pressure drop: 1.37 to 3.96 PSI
 Backwash flow rate: 5 gpm
 Regeneration volume: 105 gallons
 Brine concentration:8 lb/ft3
 Temp range: 41°F to 120° F

A cost estimate for the system has been made using the parts list presented in Table 5. The parts list
was developed to create the rough cost estimate. All the costs were found on trustworthy online stores
and have been inflated 20%.

Table 6: Basic Parts List for Option B

The implementation cost of either option A or B has been estimated to be $2500.00 plus or minus
$200.00 assuming a technical rate of $25.00 per hour. An ongoing cost of $168.00 per year for sodium
chloride to make the brine recharge solution plus $1150.00 per year in man hours required for the
recharge procedure.

7.0 Conclusion
The NTS project was a success. Ion Exchange is a viable option to treat nitrate contaminated
groundwater while being within project criteria and constraints. The NTS project met all of the project
constraints and criteria.

The recommended systems were designed to treat contaminated groundwater at a rate of 0.2 gallons
per minute with an influent concentration of 20 mg/L NO3-N and 40 mg/L SO4. The treatment
system’s A520E ion exchange resin is ready to go directly after preconditioning so the implementation
time is short. The preconditioning is a short brine recharge cycle. The system is cost effected due to
very limited alternatives for small nitrate treatment systems. Both scale up methods and recommended
options result in over 80% remove of nitrate. Both design recommendations and scale up calculation
techniques are designed around a 1 month (30 day) service cycle. After 30 days the bed volume needs to

18
be backwashed to free and suspended solids that have become stuck to the resin bed, regenerated with a
brine solution, and rinsed before the resin bed is ready for another 30 day service cycle. The system is
low maintained with an estimated 46 man hours required each year to service the resin bed each year.

To conclude on the project I have included a Table 7 which presented a distribution of the hours spent
on this project. The Table breaks the project down to hours spent on Tasks. The tasks in this table
correlate to the final NTS project schedule that is included in Appendix 15. Table 7 below presents the
distribution of hours spent on the NTS project.

Table 7: Distribution of Hours by Task

The NTS project was completed in 81 percent of the hours that where estimated for the project during
the proposal phase. The NTS project totaled 265 engineer hours at a rate of $45.00 per hour totaling
$11,925.00. An addition $100.00 was spent on printing and an addition $100.00 was spent on laboratory
materials. The total cost of services for this project is $12,125.00.

Finally I would like to thank you for your interest in my project. Please direct any questions or concerns
related to the references, laboratory experiments, scale up calculations, and system configuration
recommendations to either my email or phone number supplied below.

Zach Raymond-Becker, EIT

Email: Ztr5@nau.edu

Phone: (206) 948-5615

19
Reference List

Davis, M. (2011). Water and Wastewater Engineering. McGraw Hill Professional. Print.

DeSilva, Francis J. "Nitrate Removal by Ion Exchange." Water & Wastes Digest. (2003): 9-11,30. Print.

Dubrovsky, N.M., et al. (2010). The quality of our Nation’s waters—Nutrients in the Nation’s streams
and groundwater, 1992–2004: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1225. Retrieved on 10/10/13 from:
pubs.usgs.gov.cric1225/pdf/nutrients.pdf

Haller, L., McCarthy, P., OBrian, T., Riehle, J., & Stuhldreher, T. (1999). Nitrate pollution of
groundwater. Retrieved 3/20/2013 from http://www.reopure.com/nitratinfo.html

Jensen, V.B., Darby, J.L., Seidel, C. & Gorman, C. (2012) Drinking Water Treatment for Nitrate, Technical
Report 6 in: Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water with a Focus on Tulare Lake
Basin and Salinas Valley Groundwater. Report for the State Water Resources Control Board
Report to the Legislature. Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis.

Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin, M.A. (2009). Estimated
use of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344

LaGrega, M. D., Buckingham, P. L., Evans, J. C., & Environmental Resources Management (Firm)
(2010). Hazardous waste management. Long Grove, Ill: Waveland Press, Inc. Print.

Perlman, H. (06 Mar 2012) Nitrate and Water Accessed: 21 Apr 2013. From:
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/nitrogen.html

PuroLite – Choosing an ion exchange system for nitrate removal (2013). Retrieved on Tuesday
December 8th, 2013 from http://purolite.com/Customized/CustomizedControls/Produ
cts/Resources/rid_743.pd

PuroLite – Laboratory testing of ion exchange and adsorbent resins (2013). Retrieved on Tuesday
December 8th, 2013 from http://www.purolite.com/Customized/Customized
Controls/Products/Resources/rid_838.pdf

Portage (2013). Retrieved on 4/25/2013 from

http://www.co.portage.wi.us/groundwater/undrstnd/no3.htm

20
Stewart, S. State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division.
(2012). Nitrate in drinking water (11-WQ-012)

SOARES, M. I. M. (2000). Biological denitrification of groundwater. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 123,

183-193. Retrieved from http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/940/art%3
A10.1023%2FA%3A1005

US EPA - Basic Information about Nitrates. (2011). Retrieved on 4/25/2013 from

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/nitrate.cfm

US EPA – Drinking Water MCL. (2013). Retrieved on 9/12/2013 from

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/

21
 Appendix List
1. Appendix 1: Treatment Comparison
2. Appendix 2: Purolite A520E Engineering Bulletin
3. Appendix 3: Purolite A520E MSDS
4. Appendix 4: Laboratory Protocol for Synthetic Water
5. Appendix 5: Laboratory Protocol for Flow Through Experiment
6. Appendix 6: Laboratory Protocol for Batch Experiment
7. Appendix 7: Flow Through Experiment Data
8. Appendix 8: Batch Experiment Data
9. Appendix 9: Flow Through Experiment Results
10. Appendix 10: Scale up Design using A520 Engineering Bulletin
11. Appendix 11: Table of Equivalent Mass
12. Appendix 12: Lab Rig Flow Rate Tests
13. Appendix 13: Recommended Configuration Option A
14. Appendix 14: Recommended Configuration Option B
15. Appendix 15: NTS Project Schedule by Task

22

View publication stats