OxSolve PrO2 versus Traditional Aeration for the Oxygenation of Wastewater

DO Efficiency of OxSolve Pr02 versus “10 State Standards” & Van Kleeck Formula Test Performed by: Greener Planet Solutions Technical Staff October 6, 2011

Forward: The test results discussed in this paper are to be combined with the “OxSolve Pr02 Technical Paper”. Abstract: As is noted in the attached OxSolve Pr02 Technical Paper, as human population and industry grows, so does the need for advancement in wastewater treatment and the expenses associated with the above noted citations. To that end, over the past year, the OxSolve Pr02 Concentrated Oxygenation System has proven itself time and again to be a greatly improved technology over conventional aeration systems. Empirically, at first, it was developed and demonstrated based upon the basic axiom that although dissolved oxygen works, its present-day delivery systems are inefficient, and thusly very expensive to operate. In contrast, our premise was that that there is a better way to enhance the transfer of a pound of oxygen into a pound of dissolved oxygen. Therefore, the resultant process would necessarily yield a much higher amount of dissolved oxygen passage into the target liquor; that is to the benefit of everyone. As has been discovered and publicized from full scale pilot projects involving millions of gallons of treated effluent, the Pr02 has demonstrated that it can provide incredible differential results versus course bubble and fine bubble diffuser systems.

Through exhaustive scientific investigation, and actual scale testing, OxSolve has proven that the Pr02 system presents a very unique “liquid and gas emulsion” that remains “neutral buoyant” when discharged into the vessel being treated. Because of its unique concepts, it can be deployed a single three horsepower motor – generally replacing systems that often have an array of motors that can have horsepower from 50-100 or even more. What does “neutral buoyant” mean? It means that our oxygen delivery system is nearly 100% efficient as is proven in test results and documented in this paper. Traditional aeration technology: The routinely adopted design constraints are the target of our investigative and comparative testing. We know from full scale pilot testing that the Pr02 CLEARLY outperforms existing methods and models. Now the need is to prove the hypotheses scientifically. There are two system design focal points that are in use today.

The first is the 10 States Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities which dictates among other things that: 84.4 Aerobic digesters shall be provided with mixing equipment which can maintain solids in suspension and ensure complete mixing of the digester contents. Refer to Paragraph 85.5, and 85.5 Sufficient air shall be provided to keep the solids in suspension and maintain dissolved oxygen between 1 mg/L and 2 mg/L. For minimum mixing and oxygen requirements, an air supply of 30 cfm/1000 ft3 [0.5 of tank volume shall be provided with the largest blower out of service. If diffusers are used, the non-clog type is recommended, and they should be designed to permit continuity of service. If mechanical turbine aerators are utilized, at least two turbine aerators per tank shall be provided to permit continuity of service. Mechanical aerators are not recommended for use in aerobic digesters where freezing conditions will cause ice build- up on the aerator and support structures. The other highly relevant designer criterion is the Van Kleeck formula which is: Van Kleeck Formula 3 = (VS in — VS out) / VS in — (VS in x VS out) x 100 Both methods are predicated upon certain assumptions about the required rate of application of dissolved oxygen and how to determine how much oxygen is required for the treatment of COD/BOD digestion. They then back into the amount of air and air turbulence that is required to assure that digestion takes place. In estimating the conversion of dissolved oxygen into total oxygen, both methods assume absorption rates that are in the realm of 15% – 20%. Our methods seem to contradict the assumptions in both premises. Our tests show nearly a 100% absorption rate, and the OxSolve Pr02 System output is an emulsion that stays in solution that amplifies even further its effectiveness. Both methods use a foundation of current models that unilaterally must include off-gassing in the form of bubbles. Resultantly, there are two inherent inefficiencies from the very outset. First is the fact that air by chemistry is approximately only 20% oxygen. Thus, to provide enough oxygen, one must supply at least 5 times as much air as required oxygen.

The second is off-gassing. Under today’s methods, once the air is discharged into the digester or other vessel, it immediately and vigorously off-gasses. Air dispensed into a liquid rises at about one foot per second. Therefore, the fact that the air is only 20% oxygen, and that once released it quickly exits the liquid is a significant one. Of course, there are the additional factors of temperature and pressure. OxSolve has pending technology for both factors, but they are not a part of this analysis. Our new approach to oxygen delivery brings into focus the idea of oxygen transfer rates that result in the efficient consumption of COD/BOD. Scientific analysis dictates that what is required is Time on Task. That is, oxygen is consumed in direct proportion to the amount of time that the bacteria and other microorganisms will use it as part of their metabolism. Oxygenation efficiency is therefore logically derived from the amount of dissolved oxygen present in the liquor and the amount of time that it is present. Conventional methods that comply with 10 States Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities take an enormous amount of electricity to create an air delivery of 30 cfm per 1,000 cubic feet in a given vessel.

The efficiency of the Pr02 Series allows us to achieve better results with less energy which spotlights the inefficiency of present day systems. 2 “Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities.” http://10StatesStandards.com. Health Research Inc., ,2004. Web. 6 Oct 2011. . 3 VS in == Volatile Solids in the influent(mg/liter); VS out = Volatile solids in the effluent(mg/liter)