WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
12060	08/70
         Waste Reduction in
      Food Canning Operations
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR • FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION

-------
     WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES

The Water Pollution Control Research Reports describe
the results and progress in the control and abatement
of pollution in our Nation's waters.  They provide' a
central source of information on the research, develop-
ment, and demonstration activities in the Federal Water
Quality Administration, in the U. S. Department of
the Interior, through inhouse research and grants and
contracts with Federal, State, and local agencies, research
institutions, and industrial organizations.

A triplicate abstract card sheet is included in the
report to facilitate information retrieval. 'Space is
provided on the card for the user's accession number
and for additional uniterms.

Inquires pertaining to Water Pollution Control Research
Reports should be directed to the Head, Project Reports
System, Planning and Resources Office, Office of Research
and Development, Department of the Interior, Federal
Water Quality Administration, Room 1108, Washington, D. C.
20242.

-------
     Waste Reduction in Food Canning Operations

      A Study of Four Methods To Improve the
Quality or Reduce the Quantity of Effluent Discharged
             Ely a Fruit Processing Plant
                         by

            National Canners Association
                 Research Foundation
             Western Research Laboratory
             Berkeley, California 94710
                       for the


        FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION
           U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                Grant #WPRD 151-01-68
                    AUGUST, 1970

-------
         FWQA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Federal
Water  Quality Administration and approved
for publication.  Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the
views  and policies of the  Federal Water
Quality Administration,  nor does mention  of
trade  names or commercial  products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
   For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
               Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1

-------
                              ABSTRACT

Trickling Filter - A high rate unit was constructed,  utilizing light weight,
self-supporting plastic packing medium that provided large uniform sur-
face area for microbial growth.  The effects of hydraulic loading and
nutrient addition on soluble B.O.D. removal from fruit waste water
were investigated.  In 1968, at 1250 gpd/sq ft without nutrient addition,
190 Ibs of B.O.D.  / 1000 cu ft/day were removed*, with nutrient (anhydrous
ammonia) addition,  450 Ibs of B.O.D. were removed.  At 2200 gpd/sq ft ,
B.O.D. removal decreased slightly.

pH Control - Fruit pumping water was acidified with citric acid and con-
trolled at pH 4. 0 or below to inhibit bacterial growth and to  extend the use
of recirculated water.  The sanitary condition of the acidified system was
equal to or better than a comparable non-acidified system.   The daily dis-
charge volume of acidified  system was 6720 gallons containing 118 Ibs of
B.O.D.; non-acidifed,  26,520 gallons,  170 Ibs B.O.D.

Air Flotation System - This system was evaluated for suspended  solids
removal efficiency. The influent to recycle ratio was 1:1.   Removal
efficiency decreased as  the hydraulic rate  increased.  Removal from
peach rinse water was 65 percent to 93 percent at 2700 gpd/sq ft  and
1400  gpd/sq ft  respectively.  A 70 percent removal was maintained at
2300  gpd/sq ft  for peach and 1400 gpd/sq ft for tomato; the difference was
attributed to large quantities of dirt in the  tomato waste water.

Screens- A  single deck and a double deck circular vibrating screen were
evaluated for solids separation.  The maximum capacity of the single (20
mesh) deck was 1000 gpm.  With a  64 mesh,  capacity was reduced to 300  -
400 gpm.  Compared to  20 mesh rectangular screen, 48 mesh removed
32.2 percent more solids.  For the double  deck,  numerous combinations
of top and bottom screens were tested.  With a 20 mesh top  and 100 mesh
bottom, the unit handled 1500 gpm -1.5 times the single deck unit.  More
than 5 percent  of influent must overflow from top screen onto bottom  screen;
otherwise abrasive action of screen will increase solids in effluent.

This  report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. WPRD - 151 - 01 -  68
between the Federal Water  Pollution Control Administration and the National
Canners Association.
Key Words:  Trickling f ilter s,s  disinfection, separation techniques,
           screens, canneries, industrial wastes.

-------
                             CONTENTS

Section                                                         Page

       Abstract                                                   i

I      Conclusions                                                1

II     Recommendations                                           3

III     Introduction                                                5

IV     High Rate Trickling Filter Treatment of Liquid
       Wastes                                                     7

V     pH Control  of Recirculated Flume Water                    17

VI     Air Flotation for Removal of Suspended Solids               23

VII    Center Discharge Vibrating Screens for Separation
       of Solids from Liquid Waste Waters                         33

VIII   Acknowledgements                                         47

IX     Glossary                                                  51

X     Appendices                                                 53
                                  in

-------
                            FIGURES

                                                                   PAGE

 1      SCHEMATIC DRAWING OF HIGH-RATE TRICKLING
        FILTER TREATMENT SYSTEM                                 8

 2      OVERALL VIEW OF THE TRICKLING FILTER SYSTEM           10

 3      SINGLE BUNDLE OF PACKING MEDIUM                         11

 4      CUTTING OF PACKING MEDIUM                                11

 5      BASE OF TRICKLING FILTER                                  12

 6      TOP VIEW OF TRICKLING FILTER                             12

 7      VIEW FROM TOP OF TREATMENT COLUMN                    13

 8      SCHEMATIC OF pH CONTROL SYSTEM                          18

 9      SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AIR FLOTATION SYSTEM             24

10      FRONT VIEW OF PILOT SCALE AIR FLOTATION UNIT           26

11      REAR VIEW OF AIR FLOTATION UNIT                          26

12      TOP VIEW OF FLOTATION CELL                               27

13      DISCHARGE OF COLLECTED FLOAT MATERIAL                27

14      REDUCTION IN SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONTENT OF PEACH
        RINSE WATER  BY AIR FLOTATION                             28

15      SETTLEABLE SOLIDS - PEACH RINSE WATER                  30

16      SETTLEABLE SOLIDS - TOMATO RINSE WATER                 30

17      DIAGRAM OF SINGLE DECK CENTER-DISCHARGE SEPARATOR   33

18      VIEW OF CIRCULAR SCREEN WITH PLASTIC RINGS              34

19      TOP VIEW OF SINGLE DECK CENTER DISCHARGE
        SEPARATOR                                                  34

20      CLOSE-UP VIEW OF SEPARATOR                               35

-------
                          FIGURES (Con't)

                                                                   PAGE

21     SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF TWO-DECK CENTER
       DISCHARGE SEPARATOR                                      36

22     TOP AND BOTTOM SCREENS FOR TWO-DECK
       SEPARATOR                                                 3?

23     TOP VIEW OF TWO-DECK SEPARATOR                         3?

24     SIDE VIEW  OF TWO-DECK SEPARATOR                         38

25     CLOSE-UP  VIEW OF SOLIDS DISCHARGE                        ,0
                                                                    JO

26     CHANGE IN DIRECTION OF HYDRAULIC FLOW                  44
                                    VI

-------
                              TABLES

No.                                                              Page

I      Summary of 1967 Operational Data                         15

II     Summary of 1968 Operational Data                         15

III     pH Control of Fruit Pumping Water                        20

IV     Characteristics of  Fruit Pumping Water                    21

V     Citric Acid Consumption at Various Fresh                  21
       Water Flow Rates

VI     Average Values for Removal by Air-Flotation of            28
       Suspended Solids from Peach Rinse Water

VII    Average Values for Removal by Air-Flotation of            29
       Suspended Solids from Tomato Waste Water

VIII    Characteristics of Different Screen Mesh Wires            39

IX     Performance of Center-Discharge Separator  in             41
       Screening Fruit Waste Effluent

X     Effect of Change in Mesh Size on Top Screen                42

XI     Effect of Change in Mesh Size on Bottom Screen            42
                                  Vll

-------
                             SECTION I

                          CONCLUSIONS

High-Rate Trickling Filter

   Fruit processing waste waters are low in nitrogen which is nec-
   cessary for successful biological treatment.

   With equal hydraulic loadings of 0. 88  gpm/ sq ft, 190 Ibs B.O.D. /I 000
   cu ft/day were removed without nitrogen addition.  With anhydrous
   ammonia 450 Ibs B.O.D. /1000 cu ft/day were removed.

   Without nitrogen addition,  a heavy  fungal growth established on the
   packing medium, resulting in objectionable odors.

   The percent B.O.D. removal significantly decreased as the hydraulic
   rate increased. The pounds of B.O.D.  removed  at increased hydraulic
   loadings was not as seriously affected.

pH Control of Recircula'ted Flume Water

   A 75 percent water savings can be  achieved by the acid system as
   compared to a non-acidified flume  system.

   The acidified system discharges 30 percent less B.O.D. than the
   control system.

   Water temperature is  elevated with increased recirculation.

   Control of the pH at 4. 0 or below can  inhibit bacterial growth even at
   the higher water temperatures.

   Low bacterial population can be maintained for a  least 24 hours in an
   acidified system.

Air Flotation for Removal of Suspended Solids

   Over  70 percent of the suspended solids from peach rinse water can
   be removed by the unit at a hydraulic  loading of 3. 2 gpm/sq ft  and an"
   influent-recycle ratio  of 1:1.

   At 1. 0 gpm/sq ft the removal efficiency is greater than 90 percent for
   peach rinse water.

   For influent-recycle ratios less than one the  removal efficiency decreased.

                                     1

-------
   The percent suspended solids removal for tomato waste water was less
   than for peach rinse water.

Center Discharge Screening for Li quid and Solids Separation

   Single deck circular vibrating screens have twice the hydraulic capacity
   of table top screens of comparable mesh  size and area.

   Two deck circular vibrating  screens have 1. 5 times the hydraulic
   capacity of single deck circular vibrating screens.

   The effluent from a 48 mesh circular screen contains 32 percent less
   suspended solids than the conventional 20 mesh table top screen.

   With a two deck unit, a minimum of 5 percent of the influent must be
   discharged to the bottom screen to reduce the abrasive action of the
   screen on the solid waste.

-------
                           SECTION II

                      RECOMMENDATIONS

High-Rate Trickling Filter

   Collect additional performance data to develop cost factors and to evaluate
   the influence of other environmental parameters, such as pH control on
   B.O.D. removals.

   Determine B.O.D.  removals at various media packing depths.

pH Control of Recirculated Flume Water

   Develop a means of foam control and removal of large particulate
   solids from the recirculated water.

Air Flotation for Removal of Suspended Solids

   Investigate the use of polyelectrolytes or coagulant aids in improving
   the removal of suspended solids.

   Remove the pit fragments from peach rinse water in order to operate
   the unit without recycle pressurization.

Center Discharge Screening for Liquid and Solids Separation

   The removal of heavy or jagged objects from the influent before screening
   should be implemented to reduce damage to fine mesh screens.

-------
                               SECTION III

                             INTRODUCTION

Within recent years, dramatic technological advances in the preparation
and canning of foods have greatly changed the physical and chemical
nature of liquid  waste streams.  Production of canned foods have more
than doubled in the last 25 years.  In the face of predictions of famine
immediately ahead and continued population growth, this production and
preservation of  foods must continue to accerlerate.  At  the same time,  in-
tensified efforts must be made to find technologically-effective and economi-
cally-feasible solutions to the waste disposal problems of the food processing
industry.

To produce the canning industry's  annual nationwide pack of 760  million
cases of canned foods,  more  than 36 billion gallons of water is required.
Although much of this volume of water is reclaimed from previous uses,
the industry is entirely dependent on the availability of water of good quality.
Because of food quality improvements and more rigid definitions of cleanli-
ness, it must be expected that water used and reused in  food processing will
increase.  Today,  raw foods  must be  thoroughly washed to remove  toxic
chemical  residues  as well as natural contaminants present on field-grown
crops.

If the 36 billion  gallons of clean water taken in  by the canning industry were
discharged after use,  without treatment, the pollution potential would be
equal to more than 300 billion gallons of domestic sewage.  Fortunately,
much of this liquid waste is treated in cannery-operated or city-operated
treatment plants.

The major differences in the nature of cannery wastes from that  of other
wastes must be  recognized.  In comparison with domestic  sewage, food
processing wastes  are much higher in pollutional strength.  Of the total
organic load,  70 to 85 percent is present in the dissolved form.  Depending
on the food being canned,  the waste waters may carry sugars, starches,
and fruit acids in solution.  These dissolved solids are not removed by
mechanical or physical separation methods.  Stabilization of the  dissolved
components may be accomplished by oxidation and/or adsorption.

The four phase program,  initiated in 1967,  was planned  as a preliminary
step in designing larger-scale experimentation treatment of food processing
wastes.  Objectives of the  project were as  follows:

   To develop information on the effectiveness  of treating strong liquid
   wastes with a high-rate trickling filter.

-------
To evaluate under cannery conditions the effects of controlling, by
the addition of edible acids,  the  sanitary condition of waters re-
circulated in product pumping and fluming  systems, and to deter-
mine if the total organic waste load discharged from  the systems is
decreased as  a result of reduced leaching of product  juices.

To determine the effectiveness of air-flotation systems for removing
suspended solids as a means of reducing pollution potentials of liquid
waste streams from food canning operations.

To evaluate the performance of center-discharge, fine-screen separators
in removing suspended solids from cannery waste streams.

To select, on the basis of results obtained, a system or systems to be
enlarged in scale and  to be operated during a second  year of study.

-------
                            SECTION IV

     HIGH RATE TRICKLING FILTER TREATMENT OF LIQUID WASTE

The purpose of this phase of the project was to evaluate the performance of an
intermediate size trickling filter filled with plastic packing medium in reducing the
pollutional load of liquid wastes from fruit canning.

The scope of the evaluation included a determination of maximum B.O.D. re-
moval,  under varying B.O.D. and hydraulic loading.

Outlined below are variables investigated in  1967 and 1968  to provide the
necessary information for a technological evaluation of trickling filter effi-
ciency in treating low volume  - high strength waste waters.

   Variation of hydraulic loading: Equal ratio of fresh and  recycled waste
   water were incrementally increased in volume to  determine the maxi-
   mum hydraulic load that could be effectively treated.

   Nutrient addition :  Nitrogen was added to determine its  effect on microbial
   growth and B.O.D.  reduction.

   Organic loading; For each  of the parameters listed above,  the organic
   loading was calculated.  The applied organic load and the organic load
   discharged were used to measure the efficiency of the filter.

A schematic diagram  of the  major components of the trickling filter system is
shown in Figure  1.  More  detailed information about the trickling filter system
is  shown in the Appendix.  The Engineering Section of Del Monte Corporation
was instrumental in the design,  construction and installation of the treatment
system.

In physical dimensions, the  treatment column was a tank 12 feet in diameter
and 29 feet in height.  It was packed to a height of 21. 5 feet with plastic
medium resulting in a filter volume of 2410 cubic feet and a cross-sectional
area of 113 square feet.  At the  height of 21. 5 feet the packing medium was
self-supporting and did not require the use of an intermediate  support dock.

The wet-well sump consisted of a round tank 5 feet 8 inches in diameter  and
10 feet  in depth.  Approximately 8 feet of tank was placed below ground level
to permit a gravity flow from the treatment column to one section of the
sump.  A baffle, extending to within 6 inches of the bottom, divided the sump
into two equal sections. In one section of the sump a low level control was

-------
   ROTARY
DISTRIBUTOR
  V /#*• sfcr //& .A-
   ili
                                    FRESH WASTE-
                                    RECYCLED WASTE

                                   1 METER
                                    6" VARIABLE SPEED
                                       PUMP
                                                           METER
                                AIR
                                PORT
                                     TREATED
                                     WASTE
     TREATMENT COLUMN
FRESH-SCREEN ED
WASTE
 METER
   CD

TREATED WASTE
OVERFLOW
BAFFLE —

|
I
1


f
—








i r


                                                               ANHYDROUS
                                                               AMMONIA
      (NO SCALE)
                                       WET WELL SUMP
            Figure 1.  High rate trickling filter system.

-------
placed to prevent the pump from running dry.  Figure 2 is a photograph of
the tricking filter system.

The plastic medium was shipped from Midland, Michigan to Oakland,
California  as  expanded bundles.  Figure 3 is a photograph of a bundle.  The
trickling filter medium was made from  poly vinyl chloride, first vacuum
formed into corrugated sheets, then welded into the honey comb designed
bundle.  This configuration gave the medium a high void (94 percent) and a
large surface area (27 sq ft/cu ft) for microbial slime growth.   Figs.  4, 5,
6, and 7 provide more photographic details of the trickling filter system.

To permit  a natural up-draft  of air  through the treatment column, air  ports
were  installed around the base of the tank.  Four-inch pipe sections were
welded to the  tank at 40 degree intervals to give a total of 9 ports.  Prior
to the start of the 1968 canning season,  additional ports were added to the
treatment  column to give a total of  18 ports.

The fresh  waste to be treated by the trickling filter system was  a portion of
the plant composite waste flow which had been screened by a 20-mesh  vibrating
screen.  Peaches and fruit cocktail were being canned during the time that
the filter was in operation.

A variable speed pump withdrew the liquid from the sump  and delivered the
liquid to the top of the filter.   There a mechanically-driven rotary  distri-
butor spread the liquid evenly over  the  surface of the packing medium.  The
distribution arms rotated at 2 RPM.  The distributor contained four V-shaped
troughs with notches  spaced to evenly spread the liquid over the surface of the
packing medium.  The liquid, after passing down through the filter, collected
at the bottom  and was returned to the second section of the wet-well sump.
The excess partially treated waste overflowed out of the sump.

The volume of liquid delivered to the treatment column by the variable  speed
pump was  always greater than the amount of fresh waste  entering the sump.
The difference between the total volume pumped and the fresh waste entering
constituted the recycled volume.  For example, if 100 gpm fresh waste entered
the first section of the wet-well and a total volume of 200 gpm was  pumped to
the trickling filter  then the ratio of fresh to recycle was 1:1.

The filter  was placed into operation July 27, 1968.  The raw waste  feed rate
was 40 gpm with 100 gpm of recycle. After 4 days at this rate,  sufficient
microbial  slime had developed on the packing medium to consider the unit
operational.  On July 31, 1968, the fresh waste feed rate was increased to
75 gpm with 75 gpm recycle.   On August 10, 1968, the fresh and recycle rates

-------
Figure 2.  Overall view of the trickling filter system.
                          10

-------
Figure 3.  Single bundle of packing medium.
    Figure 4.  Cutting of packing medium.
                      11

-------
 Figure 5.  Base of trickling filter.
Figure 6.  Top view of trickling filter.
                   12

-------
Figure 7.  View from top of treatment column.
                      L3

-------
were changed to  100 gpm for each stream.   On August 22,  1968, anhydrous
ammonia was introduced into the fresh waste section of the wet-well sump.
Ammonia was added to give a nitrogen to B.O.D.  removal ratio of 1:20.
The nitrogen calculation was based on a 50 percent B.O.D. removal by the
filter.  On September 3, 1968,  the  rates were  increased again to 175 gpm
fresh and 100 gpm recycle.  This rate continued until the end of the season
which was September  14,  1968.  The flow meter,  used to measure the gaseous
anhydrous ammonia,was calibrated by obtaining weight losses at various float
meter settings.

Soon after the filter became operational, it was noted that a heavy slime
growth had developed  on the packing medium.  This growth did not easily
slough  from the filter and eventually gave rise to  the production of
objectionable odors.   Microscopic examination of the  slime revealed that
its composition was predominantly  fungal and not  bacterial growth.   The
slime growth was so thick that  anaerobic conditions existed which probably
were responsible for the odors.  Air could not diffuse through the slime
growth to maintain aerobic conditions,

Beginning with the addition of anhydrous ammonia on August 22, 1968, the
characteristics of the slime on the  packing medium rapidly changed.  The
heavy fungal slime growth sloughed from the filter within two days and
was replaced by a thin,  transparent slime.  This  slime was composed
mainly of bacteria.  It was also noted that this type of slime growth con-
tinuously sloughed from the filter and gave the appearance of an activated
sludge  floe. Tests showed that the floe rapidly settled when placed in
Imhoff cones.

For each day of operation, samples of approximately  one quart in volume
were collected of the influent and effluent.   These samples were taken at
four-hour intervals or more frequently and held under refrigeration.  At
the  end of the sampling  day,  which  lasted up to 16 hours, two composite
samples were made from the individual samples.  One composite sample
was filtered through cotton or glass wool and used for the  B. O. D. deter-
mination.   The other  composite was used for the  suspended solids deter-
mination.   The composite samples, after proper identification, were then
frozen in milk cartons and remained frozen until an analysis was made at
the  Berkeley Laboratory.  Each day that samples were collected, readings
of the two meters were  also taken and adjustments made to maintain rates.

The following analyses was performed on the samples of influent and effluent:

        chemical oxygen demand                   suspended solids
        biochemical oxygen demand                pH
                                      14

-------
Table 1 is a summary of the percent reduction in C.O. D.  and pounds of
C.O.D. removed per 1000 cubic feet of packing medium at the three fresh-
waste feed rates from experiments in 1967.  As shown in the table, the pounds
removed increased with an increase in the hydraulic load delivered to the
tower.  Time was not available for a determination of the  maximum loading
that could be handled by the filter. No adjustment in the pH of the fresh
waste was made during the evaluation.   The incoming waste had a pH of
9. 0 to 9. 5,  while the treated effluent was  near 6. 5  to 1. 0.
                                 TABLE I

                 SUMMARY OF OPERATIONAL DATA - 1967
                                                               Reduction
Flow (gpm)
Fresh Recycle
50 150
100 100
150 150
Chemical Oxygen
Demand (ppm)
In Out
Z300 1300
2300 1100
3400 2200
C.O.D. Removed
per 1000 cu ft/day
(Ibs)
310
550
900
                                                                  44
                                                                  52
                                                                  35
Table 2 is a summary of the data collected during the 1968 season.  The data
collected on a daily basis is presented in the Appendix.

                                 TABLE II

                 SUMMARY OF OPERATIONAL DATA - 1968

    Period of  Hydraulic Load    Organic Load    Organic Removal    Percent
    Operation  Gal. /Min/sq ft    Lbs B. O. D. / 1 000  Lbs B. p. D. / 1000   Removal
                               cu ft / day         cu ft /day
    8/1 - 8/9        0. 66           640                340           53
    8/13-8/21      0.88           950                190           20
    8/22-8/31      0.88*          1160                450           39
    9/4-9/14       1.54*          1550                400           26
    *Ammonia Added
                                       15

-------
Liquid waste from the processing of fruit products is very low in
nitrogen.  Analysis  indicates that approximately 10 ppm total nitrogen
may be present in such waste waters.  For biological treatment,  avail-
able nitrogen is required for microbial growth.   To effectively remove
carbohydrate and other non-protein compounds from  the waste water by
a biological system  it is necessary to add 5 ppm nitrogen for every 100
ppm B. O.D. removed.

Without a nitrogen addition to the trickling filter systems it was noted
that a heavy slime growth developed on the packing medium.  Micro-
scopic examination  of the  slime revealed a dense fungal mass with some
bacteria present. With time the slime growth increased in thickness
before shearing from the packing medium.  During this period of
operation objectionable odors were detected coming from the top  of
the trickling filter.

As indicated in Table II, there  was a decrease in the performance
of the trickling filter during the second week of operation without
nutrient addition. The B.  O.D. removed from the system decreased
from 340 to 190 lbs/day/1000 cu ft.  The percent B.O.D. removal during
this period also decreased from 53 to 20.

Following 3 weeks of operation in  1968 without nutrient addition,  an-
hydrous ammonia was added to the waste water.  The heavy slime
layer quickly sloughed from the packing medium and was replaced by
a thin  bacterial slime. The results indicated a marked improvement
in the performance  of the  trickling filter.  At a hydraulic loading of
0. 88 gpm/sq ft,  with anhydrous ammonia added, there was an increase
in the Ibs of B.O.D/1000  cu ft/day removed.  The  increased removal
was from 190 to 450 and the percent B.O.D. removal was from 20 to 39.

When operating with ammonia,  the effluent contained floe particles,
giving it the appearance of an activated sludge effluent  before clarification.
Without nitrogen addition,  the effluent would frequently contain large
masses of insoluble material.  The heavy  slime growth would intermit-
tently shear from the plastic packing medium while the thin  bacterial
slime continuously  sloughed.
                                    16

-------
                           SECTION V

     pH CONTROL OF RECIRCULATED FRUIT FLUMING WATERS

 The purpose of this phase of the project was to confirm on a com-
 mercial scale the results found earlier in laboratory experiments
 that control of pH did inhibit bacterial growth in fruit pumping waters
 and made long term use possible without sacrifice of sanitary con-
 ditions.  The scope of the experiments included the determination of
 the quantity of citric acid required to maintain pH of 4. 0, bacterial
 counts on representative samples, and determination of B. O. D. and
 temperature.

 Figure 8 is  a schematic drawing of the pH control system.  In this
 system, cling peach halves, -after final sorting and inspection,  were
 discharged into water and pumped to the can filler.  The peaches were
 de-watered  and the water returned to the surge tank.   Fresh water
 could be added to the system to provide dilution.  Adjacent to the
 system was a similar system which served  as the control.  For both
 systems,  water meters were installed to measure the amount  of
 fresh water added.

 Initially, problems were encountered in attempting to control the pH
 of the acidified flume system.  It was not possible to  continually pass
 a sample of liquid through the pH sensor without it becoming plugged
 by small fruit particles.  The placing of a strainer in the line  helped,
 but did not completely eliminate  the problem.  The final solution was
 the development of an all-plastic electrode that could be placed directly
 into the surge tank without fear of breakage.  By placing the electrode
 directly into the water,  the need for a sensor was  eliminated and better
 pH control of the  water  was achieved.


There was a tendency for foaming to occur in the surge tank as the
soluble solids  built up in the recirculated water.   This was controlled
by installing fan-type sprays in such a manner that the water discharged
almost parallel to the surface of foam.  Fine mist overhead sprays
were not satisfactory in breaking the foam  bubbles.

When very little make-up water was being added to the acidified system,
there was a gradual accumulation of small  fruit particles.   A separation
device such as a screen is needed to remove this fruit, otherwise it
may be carried out of the water with the product.
                                  17

-------
           • r




    nm/ATrn   ^^
   DEWATER
   SCREEN
oo
CITRIC ACID
                              FRESH WATER
    RECORDER-CONTROLLER
                ••••
                O
                                                         METER
                             AIR
                             VALVE
                                             PH
                                                              D
                                                         LEVEL
                     ,PROBE  CONTROL
                                                  SURGE TANK
                              PUMP
                                                                   PEACH HALVES AFTER
                                             INSPECTION
                              ACIDIFIED WATER RETURN
                               Figure 8.  pH control system.

-------
Generally, the control flume operated at a make-up rate of 20 gpm.
As  shown in the results,  the pH was near neutrality.  Laboratory
results showed this pH was most favorable for bacterial growth and
high bacterial counts were found in the water  even though considerable
fresh water was added.  At 20 gpm fresh water addition, sufficient
water was added every 6 minutes to equal a complete  change  of water
in the system.

Grab samples were collected at two hour intervals.  For the  bacter-
iological counts, the samples were collected in sterile test tubes and
held under refrigeration until the following day.  The  samples were
then diluted in sterile water blanks, plated on glucose-tryptone agar
and incubated for 2 days at 86°F.  After incubation the plates were
counted and recorded as total plate count.

Temperature, pH,  water meter readings, titratable acidity and  citric
acid consumption were recorded at the plant.  One quart samples
were collected in milk cartons  and held under refrigeration until
analyzed for  B.O.D.

Each day  four cans of the  final  product were collected from the acid-
ified and non-acidified systems.  These cans were held until  the end
of the season, then compared for differences in quality.

Shown in Table III are typical results of tests  performed on samples
collected  from the two water recirculation systems.  The relative
bacterial  count shown in this table was obtained by reducing the total
plate count to a  common denominator. Additional results are given in
the  Appendix.  Results are given for a 24-hour day on samples taken
at 2-hour intervals.  Almost without exception,  the bacterial  count
for  the acidified system was equal to or lower than the control flume.

Shown in Table IV is the amount of fresh water make-up added to each
system.   The acidified system in this case was using only 25  percent
of the amount of fresh water used in the control system.
                                 19

-------
               TABLE III



pH CONTROL OF FRUIT PUMPING WATER
Relative Bacterial
Count
Time of
Sampling
6 a. m.
8 a. m.
10 a. m.
12 noon
2 p. m.
4 p. m.
6 p. m.
8 p. m.
1 0 p. m.
12 midnight
2 a. m.
4 a. m.
Test
System
0.5
63
72
39
84
61
97
41
67
13
2
17
Cont.
System
6
138
226
106
137
111
60
82
80
22
59
9
pH
Test
System
4.4
4. 1
3.9
3.8
3.9
4. 0
3.9
3. 8
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
Cont.
System
7.6
7.2
7.3
- 7.4
7.4
7.4
7.7
7.4
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.3
Temp °F
Test
System
67
72
75
72
74
76
76
75
76
75
74
75
Cont.
System
67
70
72
70
70
72
70
71
72
69
69
71
                       20

-------
                           TABLE IV

            CHARACTERISTICS OF FRUIT PUMPING WATER
                       (24 hours of operation)

Measurement                               Acidified      Control

Water Make-Up, GPM                            5               20

Total Water Volume Used,  Gallons          6,720          26,520

Average B.O.D. , ppm                      2,034             742

Total B.O.D. Discharged,  Pounds             118             170


Table V is a summary of the quantity of citric acid used in relation to
the volume  of water added to the system.  The values reported in Table V
are averages  of several days of operation.

                           TABLE V

 CITRIC ACID CONSUMPTION AT  VARIOUS FRESH WATER FLOW RATES

            Flow in                        Lbs citric acid added
        gallons  per hour                   	per hour	

              65                                   2. 1
             160                                   2.3
             220                                   2.4
             330                                   2.8
             420                                   3. 1
             560                                   3.2
             700                                   3.6
One of the most significant savings in using a pH control system is in the
reduced quantity of water required to maintain the sanitary condition of
the recirculated water system.  The acidified system was  operated at a
make-up rate equal to 25 percent of the control system.  The two
principle  benefits from using less water are: a reduction in the quantity
of fresh water and a reduction in the volume of effluent.  Using the current
water charges in San Jose, the reduced intake of fresh water would pay
for the citric  acid used in controlling the pH of the water.  A water
savings of 20, 000 gallons per day reduces the water bill by $6. 00.  Using
an average of 2. 5 pounds of citric acid per hour and 10  cents per pound,
the cost of the acid is equal to the savings in the smaller volume of

                                     21

-------
water used.  There would be a net savings in sewer service charges for
the reduction in the volume of effluent and Ibs of BOD discharged.

The pH control system was operated continuously for only 24 hour periods.
It is very possible that even longer periods of operation could have been
used and the rate of fresh water  reduced.   This  would have resulted in
even greater savings  in water, citric acid and fewer pounds of B.O.D.
being discharged.

Results have shown that microbial multiplication can be controlled in an
acid system.  Still, it is  important that in using such a system, care must
be taken to insure that the system  does not contain  dead ends or blind  spots
which would be favorable places  for microbial growth.
                                    22

-------
                              SECTION VI

      AIR FLOTATION FOR REMOVAL OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS

If waste water supersaturated with air and under pressure is suddenly re-
leased into an open tank at atmospheric pressure,  the volume of air con-
tained above saturation comes out of solution in the form of fine bubbles.
These adhere to particles of suspended matter in the liquid and carry the
particles  to the surface,  forming a layer of "float" that can be removed  by
a skimming mechanism.

The purpose of this  study was  to determine the range in suspended solids
removal by the pressure  air flotation system for various hydraulic loadings.
Two waste streams  were selected for this  evaluation.   One was the rinse
water after exposure of peaches to a caustic solution and the other was the
screened  effluent from tomato processing.

Figure  9 is a schematic drawing of the air flotation unit.  The inner  chamber
of the flotation cell contains 10 square feet .of surface  area and this number
is used in calculating the solids loading.  The outer chamber contains 15.4
square  feet and this number is used in calculating the  hydraulic loading.  The
process consists of  four operations as follows:

Pressurization -  As stated before, the liquid waste must be pressurized.
This is accomplished by a two-stage pumping system.  The first-stage pump
transfers the liquid  from the effluent system of the cannery to the second-
stage pump.   Between the first and second stage, air is injected into the
liquid stream.

As  this mixture enters the  second pump, two processes occur simultaneously:

    The gas-liquid is subjected to  a high shear-force  created by the revolving
    pump  impellers.  This  creates a high degree of turbulence which greatly
    enhances the gas-liquid transfer that must occur for efficient flotation
    operation.

    The pressure on the liquid is  built up to the desired operating level.

Dissolution - Since the gas-liquid transfer  is a rate function, a tank, specially
designed for the application, is provided.  This,  in effect, provides more time
for  the  transfer to occur.

Flotation  - The pressurized gas-laden liquid is fed into  the flotator.  The
pressure  is released and the air comes out of solution in the form of very
fine bubbles.  The bubbles  attach themselves to the solids which in turn rise to
the  liquid surface and  are removed mechanically by a  rotating float collector

                                     23

-------
                     AIR PRESSURE
                                        PRESSURE  AIR-LIO.UID
                  	1 TANK      DISSOLVING
                                                    SYSTEM
         AIR
                I
                                                                 FLOTATION SYSTEM
to
*».
                . COMPRESSOR

                      I	
  PRE-SCREENED    j
  CANNERY WASTE ~"|	^^f°
1st. STAGE
  PUMP
                                  2nd STAGE
                                    PUMP
                    LIQUID PRESSURIZATION
                           SYSTEM
                                    FLOATABLE     SETTLED
                                       SOLIDS     COARSE SOLIDS
                                                            SOLIDS TO DISPOSAL

                                 Figure 9.  Air flotation system.
                                                                       CLEAN
                                                                       WATER
                                                                       DISCHARGE

-------
that discharges into a float box.

The clarified water flows to a collection launder around the periphery
of the tank.  This water is  sufficiently low in suspended solids to be directly
discharged into the municipal sewer system.

If any coarse solids by-pass the pre-screening system, they are collected
in the bottom of the tank.  A rotating scraper assembly moves these settled
solids to a central discharge point where the solids can be collected and
combined with  the float solids for final disposal.

Air Compression - This system merely supplies a quantity of compressed
air for dissolution in the liquid to be treated.

Photographic details of the pilot scale air flotation unit are shown in
Figures  10-13.  A 55 gallon drum was  placed on top of the flotation cell
to act as a surge tank.  Two 55  gallon drums were placed on either side
of the flotation cell to collect the float material.   Another 55 gallon drum
was used to measure the volume of clarified effluent from the unit.

The air flotation unit was originally set up to pressurize the influent.  For
the peach rinse water it was determined that this method of operation was
not possible.   The rinse water was used to convey peach pits from the plant.
After separation the water  contained pit  fragments and fruit particles which
prevented  an accurate measurement of the flow.   Therefore, the unit was re-
piped so that the effluent passed through the pressurization system then mixed
with the  rinse water just prior to being introduced into the flotation cell.

Hour grab samples were collected of the influent, effluent and float.  At the
end of 4  hours  a composite was  made of  the grab samples.  The analysis
was performed on the composite samples.  At the end of 4 or  8 hours of
operation, the  quantity of float material  in the 55 gallon drums was deter-
mined.   The flow of effluent into the third 55 gallon drum was determined
by using a stop watch and measuring the time required to fill a given volume.

Figure  14 is a bar graph of the  results  obtained when peach rinse water served
as the influent.  The performance of the unit was influenced by the total hydrau-
lic load  and the relationships  between the quantity of fresh and recycle flows.
The percent of suspended solids removed from the influent decreased as the
flow increased.  At 7. 5 gpm the removal was 93% and at 30 gpm it was 65
percent.
                                      25

-------
Figure 10.   Front view of pilot scale air flotation unit.
       Figure 11.  Rear view of air  flotation unit.
                             26

-------
     Figure 12.  Top view of flotation cell.
Figure  13.  Discharge of collected float material.
                         2

-------
                 60
                                                 30.0 GPM FRESH
                                                 10.0 GPMRECYCLf
Figure 14.   Reduction in suspended solids content of peach rinse water by
             air flotation.

Tabulated in Table VI are averages for the data collected on peach rinse
water.  The individual analyses of the composite samples  are contained
in Appendix D.

In general the volume of float material removed from the flotation cell
increased with an increase in the total hydraulic load.  The concentration
of suspended solids in the float generally decreased as  the  hydraulic rate
increased.

                                    TABLE VI
          AVERAGE VALUES FOR REMOVAL BY AIR-FLOTATION OF
              SUSPENDED SOLIDS FROM PEACH RINSE WATER	

      Influent     Hydraulic  Influent  Effluent  Percent     Float     Solids
    Raw Recycle   Loading   Solids    Solids   Removal   Vol.  Solids  Loading
       (gpm)     (gpm/ft^)   (ppm)   (ppm)
(gph)  (%w/v)(lbs/hr/ft2)
7.
15.
20.
25.
20.
30.
30.
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.
15.
20.
25.
10.
15.
10.
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
2.
0
9
6
2
9
9
6
1400
1500
1300
700
900
1500
200
90
180
340
190
230
590
70
                                              93.2
                                              87. 7
                                              74. 0
                                              71. 0
                                              72. 0
                                              66. 1
                                              64. 8
3.6
3.6
7.8
7.8
6.7
7.8
2. 3
2. 1
1.7
1.5
1.3
2. 0
1.6
2. 1
0.6
0.7
1.2
0.8
0.9
2. 2
0.3
                                      28

-------
Table VII presents the data collected when the air flotation unit operated
with tomato waste water.  The waste water had passed through a 20 mesh
vibrating screen prior to being pumped to the flotation unit.

The percent removals are slightly less than those obtained for the peach
rinse water.  The principle difference between the results for the two
types of waste waters is the higher solids content in the tomato float mat-
erial, the  reduced volume of float collected and the lower solids loadings.
                              TABLE VII

         AVERAGE VALUES FOR REMOVAL BY AIR-FLOTATION OF
            SUSPENDED SOLIDS FROM TOMATO WASTE WATER

      Influent     Hydraulic  Influent  Effluent Percent
    Raw Recycle  Loading   Solids   Solids   Removal
      (gpm)      (gpm/ft2)   (ppm)  (ppm)

    7.5     7.5    1.0     1100
   15.0    15.0     1.9     1100

   30.0    15.0     2.9      500
180

240

180
'ercent
\emova.

83. 5
77. 7
60. 7

I F
(gph)
6. 5
11. 1
8. 8

lo at
(%w/v)
8. 3
3. 0
3. 1
Solids
Loading
(Ibs/day/ft3
9. 7
19. 5
15.9
Figures 15 and 16 illustrate the principle difference observed in the float
collected from the two types of waste waters.  When placed in Imhoff cones,
the peach float always separated into 3 fractions.  Most of the float went
to the top of the cone,  with some settling to the bottom.

For the tomato float,  there  was very little free liquid and also only a small
amount of settleable material in the Imhoff cones.  The  tomatoes had been
machine harvested and upon delivery to the  cannery contained large amounts
of field soil.  The air flotation unit removed most of the soil which probably
contributed to the high solids  content of the  tomato float material.

The peach rinse water contained pit fragments and fruit particles which
prevented the direct pressurization of the waste flow.  It was necessary
to pressurize and recycle a portion of effluent and this reduced the hydraulic
capacity of the unit  in being able to treat the influent waste stream.
                                      29

-------
                    PiflM,       Mlli'.'


Figure 15.  Settleable solids  - peach rinse water.
             IMFLUEIT     EFFLUENT
                  PRESSURE  BiR FLOlflTlOM
                    ENED TQMRTO WPSTE WflTER
Figure 16.  Settleable solids - tomato rinse  water.

-------
Suspended solids removal is clearly influenced both by the total hydraulic
load and the ratio of raw influent to pressurized flow.  Suspended solids
removal decreases as the hydraulic flow increases and the ratio of raw
influent to pressurized flow increases.  For a total hydraulic load of
1.9 gpm per square foot, the suspended solids  reduction was 88 percent
for a 1:1 ratio; for a 2:1 ratio the percent reduction was 72.   Similar
results were obtained  at a total hydraulic load of 2. 6 gpm per square
foot and ratios of 1:1,  2:1 and 3:1.

The maximum hydraulic loading which was investigated was  3.2 gpm per
sq ft.  At this loading  over 70 percent of the suspended solids were re-
moved from the peach rinse  water.  At lower loadings, greater removals
were obtained if the ratio of waste to recycle ratio was maintained at
one.

The hydraulic rates investigated for tomato waste water were not as  ex-
tensive as for the peach rinse water.  However for those ranges studied,
the removals were comparable, being slightly less.  At  0. 98, 1. 95,  and
2. 92 gpm per sq ft and-with comparable ratios  of waste to recycle, the
percent removals for peach rinse water were 93,  88,  and 66.  For tomato
waste water the percent removals  were 84,  78  and 61  percent.

Other than the natural differences  between the suspended solids of each of
the two waste streams, the tomato waste water contained considerable
amounts of soil which  may have contributed to the performance of the
air flotation system.   This soil was the result of the plant receiving machine
harvested tomatoes that contained  free field soil and dirt adhering to the
surface of the product.

The presence of soil in the waste water probably increased the solids con-
tent of the collected float material.  This seems to be  quite evident when
the unit was operating at a rate of  0. 97 gpm per sq ft in which the solids
concentration was 8.3 percent.  Under the same conditions,  the solids
content of float for peach rinse water was 2. 1 percent.
                                     31

-------
                          SECTION VII

   CENTER DISCHARGE VIBRATING SCREENS FOR SEPARATION OF
                 SOLIDS FROM LIQUID WASTE WATERS

The purpose of this project was to evaluate the performance of center -
discharge separators in removing suspended solids from cannery liquid
waste streams.

The performance of a center-discharge separator,  equipped with two screen-
ing decks rather than one, was evaluated in  1968 for hydraulic capacity
and for  effectiveness in  removal of solids.   Combinations of screens of
various mesh sizes were placed on the unit for evaluation.   Determinations
consisted of waste water in-put volumes and suspended solids content
of the effluent for the different combination of screens.

A  schematic illustration of the single deck separator is shown in Figure 17.
The circular unit was  5 feet in diameter-and contained 9 square  feet of
screening area.   In this  screening system,  solids are  forced towards the
center for discharge.  Beneath the screen a layer of plastic rings vi-
brate and rotate when  the unit is  in operation.  Use of  the rings  made
possible the screening of large volumes of water and limited blinding
problems.
   Figure 17.  Diagram of single deck center-discharge separator.

Figure 18 is a photograph of a screen used by the single deck separator.
At the bottom of the screen are several of the plastic rings.  These rings
are located on the underneath side of the  screen and vibrate against the
surface to lessen blinding problems and to permit a greater volume of
flow through the screen mesh openings.  Figure 19 is a top view of the
single deck screen.  Four  arms distribute waste over the surface of the
                                     33

-------
     Figure 18.  View of circular screen with plastic rings.
Figure 19.  Top view of single deck center discharge separator.
                               34

-------
screen.  Figure 20 is a close-up view of the separator.  The ring or
dam of solid wastes is visible around the discharge circle of the  screen.
               Figure 20.  Close-up view 01 separator.
                                  35

-------
                                                -   LIQUID
                                           ^*   -   WASTE
       SOLID
       WASTE
       Figure 21.  Two deck center discharge separator.

The illustration above (Figure 21) shows how the two-deck center dis-
charge separator works.  Flow to the unit is handled through a four-arm
feeder that distributes water and solids to the outer periphery of the top
screen.  The liquid flow pushes the solids to a large center opening in
this screen.  Solids  then fall to the lower screen deck and move to the
outer periphery with final discharge out the solids spout.

At the same  time, the liquid normally goes through the top screen and is
discharged out the water spout located under the top screen. If there is
an overflow surge of liquid contained in the material falling through the
top screens center opening, the liquid goes through the bottom screen and
out the lower water spout.  Each circular screen is 60 inches in diameter.
The unit is powered  by a 2 1/2 horse power motor and weighs approximately
1 000 pounds.
                                    36

-------
Figure 22 is a photograph of the two screens used in a two deck separator.
The screen on the left is the top screen and the one on the right is the
bottom screen.  Figure 23 is a view looking down onto the top of the unit.
To the left is located the two spouts that discharge the liquid water.
Directly opposite is the spout that discharges the solids.
    Figure 22.  Top and bottom screens for a two deck separator.
                                               /
                                               i
            Figure 23.  Top view of two-deck separator.
                                    17

-------
Figure 24 is a side view of the two deck separator.  Visible is the chute
which carried away the solids.  On the opposite side is the  discharge
of the liquid waste water.  Figure 25 is a close-up of the solids being
discharged from the bottom screen of the two unit deck unit.
             Figure 24. Side view of two deck separator,
             Figure 25.  Close-up view of solids discharge.
                                   38

-------
 In evaluating the performance of circular screens, two different grades of
 screens were used.  Some screens were made from wire of a standard
 diameter commercially used in the manufacture of flat vibrating screens
 and are referred to as market grade.  The other screens were made from
 wire of a finer diameter and are referred to as tensile bolting cloth screens.

 Table VIII provides information about the important  characteristics of the
 two types of screens.  For a given mesh rating, the tensile bolting cloth
 has a greater distance between the wires, resulting  in more open area.
 Since there was a greater percentage of open area on the tensile bolting
 cloth screens, it was possible to put through a greater volume of waste
 water as compared to the  market grade screens.

 The use of finer wire in making tensile bolting screens  does mean that pre-
 cautions should be taken to eliminate from the waste water any  sharp metal
 or heavy objects.  In conducting the test  program, several screens were
 damaged because crushed cans, metal and other objects were pumped up
 onto the screen surface.

                              TABLE  VIII

      CHARACTERISTICS  OF DIFFERENT SCREEN  MESH WIRES
 Mesh

 20
 40
 48
 64
 78
 80
 94
100
                             Market Grade
Opening - Inches

    . 0340
    . 0150
Wire Diameter

    . 0162
    . 0104
% of Open Area

    46.2
    36. 0
    . 0070

    . 0055
    . 0055

    . 0045
     31.4

     30.3
 20
 40
 48
 64
 78
 80
 94
             Tensile Bolting Cloth

     0410                  .0090
     0185                  .0065
     0153                  .0055
     0111                  .0045
     0091                  . 0037
     0088                  . 0037
     0071                  .0035
                           67.2
                           54.8
                           54.2
                           50.7
                           50.6
                           49.6
                           45. 0
                                     39

-------
In 1967 an evaluation was made to determine the performance of a
single deck vibrating screen in removing solids from waste water.
Screens of a given mesh size were operated for approximately one week
before changing to another mesh size.  Samples of influent, effluent
and solids were collected at hourly intervals and composited into 4 hour
samples for analysis.  The flow and  the type of solids in the waste water
was recorded.  Samples were also collected from a 4 ft x 8 ft rectangular
20 mesh screen.  The results from the two types of screens were used
for comparative purposes.

In 1968 a two deck screen was operated at the same location as was  used
for the single deck screen.   The same operating procedures were used
in evaluating the two deck unit.  Samples of effluent were collected
separately from the top and bottom screens rather than one sample from
the combined flow from both screens.

The volume of water delivered to the circular screens was controlled by
either of  two methods.  The pulley size on the pump could be changed to
deliver a given volume or a gate valve on the discharge side of the pump
could be restricted to reduce the flow.

Tests performed  on the waste water  samples included settleable solids
and suspended solids.  The moisture, content of the solids was  determined.
For the two deck  unit an estimate of  the percentage of flow screened by
each  of the decks  was made.   The unscreened waste water passed through
a 20 mesh Tyler screen and results  from this test were considered as the
control sample.

Table IX  is a tabulation of average results obtained in 1967  with the single
deck  center discharge separator. At the bottom of the table results are
shown for an experiment in which waste water  screened by a 20 mesh vi-
brating screen was then pumped to the circular screen containing a 64 mesh
screen.
                                     40

-------
                                  TABLE IX
     PERFORMANCE OF CENTER-DISCHARGE SEPARATOR IN SCREENING
                        FRUIT WASTE EFFLUENT
Type of Screen
Table Vibrating
Circular Vibrating
Table Vibrating
Circular Vibrating
Table Vibrating
Circular Vibrating
Mesh
Size
20
20
20
40
20
48
Suspended Solids (ppm) Hydraulic Loading (GPM)
Influent
343
343
418
526
360
360
Effluent (Circular vibrating screen)
346
347 1000
447
527 500 600
366
248 500
      After passing through
      20-mesh table vibrating
      screen onto:

      Circular Vibrating  64
1270
910
300 - 400
Located in the Appendix are the  results obtained in 1968 with the two deck
separator.  Table X contains data to illustrate the effect of changing the mesh
size of the top screen while maintaining a constant mesh size on the bottom
screen.
                                      41

-------
                                   TABLE X
             EFFECT OF CHANGE IN MESH  SIZE ON TOP SCREEN
    Mesh
 TOP

 20

 40

 48
 64

 80

100
% Screened
EOT.
78
78
78
78
78
78
TOP
99.9
99.5
99.5
92. 0
90. 0
50. 0
BOT.
0.1
0.5
0.5
8. 0
10. 0
50. 0
Suspended Solids (ppm)
TYLER
440
475
496
390
585
623
TOP
564
510
499
377
512
593
BOT. TABLE TOP
1851
2080
3810
569
647
667
512
535
497
403
560
613
 Table XI illustrates the effect of changing the mesh of the bottom screen
 while the top screen remains constant.


                                  TABLE XI
          EFFECT  OF CHANGE OF MESH SIZE ON BOTTOM SCREEN
Mesh
TOP
78
80
78
80
BOT.
64
78
94
100
% Screened
TOP
70. 0
85. 0
75. 0
85.0
BOT.
30. 0
15. 0
25. 0
15.0
Suspended. Solids (ppm)
TYLER
263
585
475
394
TOP
243
512
445
331
BOT.
473
647
830
640
TABLE TOP
307
560
547
377
                                      42

-------
In looking down onto the top of the unit,  before modification, the solids and
the flow from the spreader arms  were in the same direction.  After changes
were made, the solids  still rotated in the  same direction but the flow was in
the opposite direction to the rotation of the solids.  This change interrupted
the tendency of the liquid to swirl around the outer edge of the top screen
and also pushed the solids toward the center for discharge to the bottom
screen.  This change increased the screening capacity of the top screen
and also removed the solids faster from the top deck.  This was important
because results have shown that in screening fruit waste, it was desirable
to minimize the contact time between fruit solids and screen surface be-
cause of the grating action of the  screen.

The single deck screen required the  maintenance of solid wastes around the
center discharge area to prevent water from discharging with the solids.
Fine mesh screens required that the flow  being screened had to be reduced;
otherwise it was not possible to maintain solids around the discharge throat
of the unit.

As a result of the 1967  experiments, the manufacturer of the center-discharge
separator built a proto-type model to overcome most of the observed limi-
tations of circular screens.  The  new unit had two screening decks rather
than one. The top screen was  in the same position as on the original unit,
but an additional screen was placed directly below. With this arrangement,
it. should be possible to maintain a high volume, flow  rate with the finer
mesh screens.  In operation,  the  new unit deliberately overflowed some water
with solids into the center of the top  screen.  The second screen which has
a solid center could then complete the separation of liquids from solids.

On September 12, 1968, a taller outer top frame  was  installed on the unit as
well as  new distribution or feeder arms.  Additional height was added to the
frame to eliminate occasional splashing of liquids over the side.  The new
spreader arms were installed to provide a minimum of 2 inches of clearance
between the bottom surface of the spreader and the top surface of the screen.
This was necessary to prevent large objects from lodging beneath the
spreader arms.  The discharge of the flow to the screen in relation to the
travel of the  solids on the top screen was  also changed as illustrated in
Figure  26.

During the 1968 test program peaches, pears,  fruit cocktail and tomatoes
were being processed by the cannery.  At no time was it possible to obtain
screening data while a  single product was being canned.   At the beginning
of the test program,  peaches were the major commodity being canned but
there was also some solid waste from pear processing.  Beginning August 1,
1968, peaches, pears and tomatoes were  being processed on an approximate
                                     43

-------
                Before
    After
             SOLIDS ROTATION
SOLIDS ROTATION
           Figure 26.  Change in direction of hydraulic flow.
equal basis.  On August 28,  the product mix consisted of cocktail and
tomatoes.  Then on September 23, primarily pears and tomatoes were
processed by the cannery.  With the beginning of October the major
commodity processed was tomatoes although some waste was being
generated from pears and this combination continued until the end of the
test program.

Additional tests were made when the plant was processing mostly tomatoes.
The results again showed that the center-discharge separator with fine mesh
screens, was able to produce an effluent lower in suspended solids than
the table vibrating separator using a 20 mesh screen.  When the  circular
screen operated on tomato waste water, it was noted that pieces  of peel did
not lodge in the spaces between the  screen wires as often occurs  with other
screens.  Such "blinding" of the screen openings can cause  flooding over
the waste water into the screened solid material.
                                     44

-------
In 1967 tests were conducted to determine the feasibility of reducing the solids
content of effluent waste waters by means of a circular vibrating screen.  It
was determined that fine mesh screens,  equal to or greater than 48 mesh,
could reduce the suspended solids of effluents when compared to conventional
20 mesh flat vibrating screens.  It was noted that with the  circular screen,
the volume of feed had to be reduced as the fineness of the screens mesh
increased,  otherwise there was a flooding of liquid into the screened solids.
It was further noted that low quantities of solids in  the unscreened water
made it difficult to prevent liquids from being discharged with the solids.


With a 40 mesh screen on the circular unit,  the volume being screened had
to be reduced to 500 to 600  gpm.  There was no difference  in the suspended
solids  content of the effluent from either of the screening systems.  Using
a 48 mesh screen, there was a difference in the  suspended solids content
of the effluent from the two types  of screens.  The circular screen reduced
the  suspended solids content by 31 percent as compared to  the table screen.
However, the flow rate for the circular screen had  to be reduced to 400 to
500 gpm.

At the  bottom of Table IX,  results were given for an experiment in which
the  effluent from the 20 mesh vibrating screen was  re-screened by the
center-discharge  separator using a 64 mesh screen.  The  suspended solids
content was reduced an additional 28 percent with the finer mesh screen.
Again the volume being screened had to be reduced,  this time to 300 to 400
gpm.

Fine mesh screens installed on a  single deck center-discharge  separator did
separate the gross solids from the liquid waste and also removed some sus-
pended solids which pass through a 20 mesh screen.  In most instances with
fine mesh screens there  was a reduction in the suspended solids of the
effluent,  when compared to  the Tyler screen results which  did not dis-
entegrate the solids.

For runs using 20, 40, or 48 mesh on the top,  almost all of the  liquid-solid
separation took place on  the top screen.  For these  runs all of the solids
which were rescreened on the bottom screen, were  essentially "dry  screened"
and this resulted in the high suspended solids content for the bottom  screen
effluent.   With the finer meshes on top (64, 80 and 100), some water was
carried over from the top screen which was then removed by the bottom
screen.  The water on the bottom  screen acted as a lubricant and prevented
the  solids from being subjected to a grating action of the screen.
                                     45

-------
It was shown in Table IX and illustrated again in Table X that if dry screening
is prevented on the bottom screen, there will not be a significant increase
in  suspended solids content of the effluent from the bottom screen.   In com-
paring results  in Tables IX and X it can be seen that when a mesh of 64 or
finer is used on the top screen, the suspended solids  content will be less
than from the conventional table top screen and from  Tyler static screen
test.

Generally, the suspended solids content of effluent from the bottom  screen
was high when the discharge volume was very low. This was a result of
the solids being dry screened.  This high suspended solids value was not
found to be very significant when the flows from the top and bottom screens
were weighted for the volumes  of liquid being discharged  by each screen.
For examples,  in Table IX where a combination of 20 and 78 mesh screens
were used,  99. 9 percent of the total volume was screened on the top deck
and 0. 1 percent screened on the bottom deck.  The suspended solids from
each screen was 564 and 1851 ppm respectively.   If 1000  gpm was being
screened by the unit  under these conditions,  then  999 gpm was discharged
by  the top screen and 1  gpm by the bottom screen. Converting these figures
to pounds of suspended solids per day, it was found that the effluent from
the top screen contained 812 pounds while only 2. 56 pounds of suspended
matter was in the bottom screen effluent.
                                      46

-------
                            SECTION VIII

                        ACKNO WLEDGEMENTS
The National Canners Associations Western Research Laboratory wishes
to express its  appreciation to the Federal Water Quality Administration
and to the Canners League of California  for financial support given
to the research described in this report.  Without this support  the
research would  not have been possible.   The project team is indebted to
the Water and Waste Problems Committee of the Canners League of  Calif-
ornia for valuable assistance and guidance to the research program.  The
following persons gave valuable time  and advice on this project:
   Harold Redsun,  Del Monte Corporation,  Berkeley - Chairman
   George  Coley, Tri-Valley Growers, San Francisco
   Albert Crawford,  Hunt-Wesson Foods, Fullerton
   Robert Foster,  Contadina Division, Carnation Co. ,  Van Nuys
   Arthur Heiser,  Tillie Lewis Foods, Stockton
   "William Kesler, Bercut-Richards  Packing Co. , Sacramento
   Harvey  Lancaster, U.S. P.  Corporation, San Jose
   Lee Quarataroli, Stanislaus Food Products Co. ,  Modesto
   Ed Mitchell, California Canners and Growers,  San Jose
   Sidney Ross, Martinez Food Canners,  Lt. , Martinez
   Robert Stevens,  Fairview Packing Company, Ltd. , Hollister
   John Wahlberg,  Libby, McNeill and Libby,  San Mateo

Much of the equipment and instrumentation used in the project was made
available at no cost other than for installation by the manufacturers and
suppliers of the equipment.  The  representatives of these organizations
gave generously of their time to the project.  The following  organizations
and personnel made valuable contributions:

   Pressure Air-Flotation Unit, supplied by:

   The Eimco Corporation
   420 Peninsular Avenue
   San Mateo,  California 94401
   Kenneth A.  Paulson

   Instrumentation for pH Control of Recirculated Waters, supplied by:

   Taylor Instrument Companies
   1661 Timothy Drive
   San Leandro, California 94557
   Wayne A. Langford
                                   47

-------
   Vibrating Screens,  supplied by:

   Southwest Engineering Company (Sweco)
   6111 East Bandini Blvd.
   Los Angeles,  California 90054
   Jim K. Mclntosh
   Paul Miller
   Robert Miller

   Pipes, Fittings, Valves  and Other Equipment, supplied by:

   Food Machinery Corporation
   333 West Julian Street
   San Jose, California 95108
   H. L Link
   Harold Adams
The Dow Chemical Company, through its representatives,  Han G. Arensberg
and George W. Quiter, provided technical assistance in the installation
and operation of the trickling filter.

Appreciation is expressed to many persons associated with the two food
plants where the pilot equipment was located.  Without their cooperation
during the installation and operation of the experimental equipment, the
results reported herein could not have been obtained.  In this  and other re-
spects, the project personnel and the  food industry is indebted to the fol-
lowing organizations and  representatives:

   Del Monte  Corporation,  Plant No.  3
   801 Auzerais Avenue
   San Jose, California
   Herbert Erickson
   Gene Zollezi
   Bob Mitchell

   U. S. P. Corporation
   560 Race Street
   San Jose, California
   Paul Rea
   Harvey Lancaster
   Robert  Brewer
                                     48

-------
Much of the credit for the success of this project must go to the team
which supervised  and logged the operation of the equipment, carried out
the sampling schedules and performed the many laboratory analyses.  The
project team included the following:

          Carol Barnes                        Kimber Kraul
          Lou Cassella                        Jennie Marano
          Dave Diosi                           Julio Massa
          Larry Johnson                       Charles Small

In addition to the project team, valuable  contributions were made to the
research  effort by the following National Canners Association's staff
members.

          Edwin Doyle                         Allen Katsuyama
          Stuart Judd                          Jack Rails

Of great significance was the assistance  given this project by a  subcommittee
of the Water and Waste Problems Committee of the Canners League of
California.  A number of food canning plants in the City of San Jose,  Calif-
ornia,  offered space and facilities for location of the experimental equip-
ment.   The subcommittee comprised of the following persons selected the
plant sites on the  basis of a study of the needs of the project:

          E. L. Mitchell,  Chairman
          Harvey  Lancaster
          Richard Foster
          Harold  Redsun

Other contributions  were made by many individuals concerned with the
implementation of the four projects described in this report.  We acknow-
ledge the  assistance given by these unnamed individuals and look forward to
future  cooperation as research seeks to find answers and solutions to halt
the pollution of the Nation's streams.
                                                          (X
                                              Walter A. Mercer
                                              Project Director
                                             Walter W.  Rose
                                             Project Leader
                                     49

-------
                            SECTION IX

                            GLOSSARY

An explanation of the headings for data on screens is as follows:

Mesh - refers to the top and bottom screens on the circular unit.
Percent screened - an estimate of the volume being screened by the top
                    and bottom screens on the circular unit
Settleable solids -  mis of material settled after one hour  in an Imhoff cone.
          a.  Tyler - settleable  solids obtained by passing a sample over a
                     20 mesh static  screen.  Used as  a control for the two
                     deck screen.
          b.  Top  - settleable solids  from the top screen of the two deck unit.
          c.  Bottom - settleable solids from the bottom  screen of the two
                      deck unit
          d.  Tyler - settleable  solids from a 20 mesh static screen.  Used
                     as a control for the table top screen.
          e.  Table top effluent - settleable solids from the cannery operated
                                 20 mesh vibrating screen

Suspended solids - milligrams per liter of material retained on a glass fiber
                   filter paper
          a.  Tyler - suspended solids obtained by passing a  sample over a
                     20 mesh static  screen.  Used as  a control for the two
                     deck screen.
          b.  Top  - suspended solids from the top screen of the  two deck unit
          c.  Bottom - suspended solids from the bottom screen of the two
                       deck unit
          d.  Tyler - suspended solids from a 20 mesh static screen.  Used
                     as a control for the table top screen.
          e.  Table top effluent - suspended solids from the cannery operated
                                 20 mesh vibrating screen

Percent moisture - amount of liquid in a sample obtained by drying to a
                    constant weight in an oven (103°C).
                                      51

-------
                                 SECTION X
                                APPENDICES
A.       High Rate Trickling Filter Treatment
         of Liquid Wastes	54

         Figure A-l:   Trickling Filter Waste
                       Water Sump	55
         Figure A-2:   Trickling Filter Tank
                       and Pad	56
         Figure A-3:   Sparger and Drive
                       Assembly	57
         Figure A-4:   Spargers	58
         Figure A-5:   Nylon Bushing	59
         Table 1:       Trickling Filter Treatment of
                       Fruit Canning Liquid Wastes	60

B.       pH Control of Recirculated Flume Water	63

         Table 1:       Results for Acidified Pumping
                       System	64
         Table 2:       Results for Non Acidified
                       Pumping System	70

C.       Air Flotation for Removal of Suspended
         Solids	77

         Table 1:       Air Flotation  - Peach
                       Rinse Water	78
         Table 2:       Air Flotation  - Tomato
                       Waste Water	80

D.       Center Discharge Vibrating Screens for
         Separation of Solids from Liquid Waste Waters	81

         Table 1:       Screening of Fruit and
                       Tomato Waste Waters	82
                                     53

-------
                APPENDIX A

HIGH RATE TRICKLING FILTER TREATMENT
                     OF
               LIQUID WASTES
                      54

-------
"A"
 L
J
              -* o.ito
                  /fcrtlr
            lit
                            vvO
                            v«o
                                          7
                              n -   . f
                    SECTION VA
                                                   . Bi t u mastic  Coated
                                                    Intide  and Out
WASTfc
                                                             SUMP
                                                               er AM K
                                                   Figure A-l.
                         55

-------
05
         T=|K.:.'.-. ».
        SECTION 7HRU
                                                   "K
                                                    L

1



*-
ffocedf
( Random
*•»»
-2VC.-




•

                                      G RAT INC, DtTA/L
                                                               A-'
                                                               «   \  \§
'^/    Y
Y^r
:t
          7-0

                                                                  /
                                                                      \
                                                                /
  PLAN
•Scale' fa • I'-O"
                                                                  C. Mm ft. Uby
                                                             S ftettgr 12"O. C. Max. fa.

                                                               SECTION ^'A-A"
                                                                Sco /e •• %}t?= I-O"
L
                                                                                  t  vS
                                                                              T^^4K. 4
                         f
                        — J
                                                                        Scale AS
                   DWC- B-67240-f
                  Figure A-2.

-------
  5ch  4O PI of. fasten To Sot-torn



Tank.  b//th F/ana&
                                            Figure A-3.
                            57

-------
                   TOP i//f\y
SP>AGGER. 8- 2 RE-QU/RID
                                          -.ij" i-'q pftp>v»xAfcv RA
                                               Figure A-4.
                        58

-------
                  9"O.D.*£"Ha// Scorn/e*s
                  Tubing (Machtn*.
        7' I.D.
   7,7£ — o'.oo  O.D. &ushing
 (JT. D. */ housing -{or-presa-ttt
	   ^" Q.£>.	
               ' O.D.
NYLON   BUSHING
                               MUW
                                        Figure A-5
                 59

-------
                             TABLE I




TRICKLING FILTER TREATMENT OF FRUIT CANNING LIQUID WASTES
Date
1968
8/1
8/2
8/3
8/5
8/6
8/8
8/9
Ave.
8/13
8/16
8/17
8/19
8/20
8/21
Ave.
8/22
8/23
8/24
8/28
8/29
8/31
Ave.
9/4
9/5
9/7
9/9
9/10
9/13
9/14
Ave.
INFLUENT
Hdly
Load
0.66
11
It
II
11
II
It
tt
0.88
It
11
tt
tt
tr
M
0.88
II
tt
tl
Tt
M
11
1.54
ft
M
It
ff
M
tt
tl
PH
5.3
-
6.3
6.2
6.1
6.4
-
6.1
7.5
719
6.4
6.7
8.1
8.8
7.6
7.5
8.6
8.4
5.2
5.5
6.1
6.9
6.8
6.6
4.8
6.6
7.8
8.4
5.5
6.7
BOD
1700
2370
1890
2240
1860
800
1240
1730
1790
1860
2150
2000
1800
1940
1920
2250
2330
2010
2530
2490
2410
2340
2180
2310
2020
1710
1450
1260
1620
1790
Susp.
Sol.
—
-
-
-
670
490
-
580
_
810
1030
850
620
670
800
670
550
620
870
590
950
710
600
800
1040
1190
560
560
530
750
EFFLUENT
pH
5.2
-
6.4
6.8
5.7
6.2
-
6.1
5.1
5.5
5.2
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.4
6.8
6.7
6.6
5.9
5.8
5.8
6.3
6.5
6.4
4.6
5.0
5.6
5.6
4.9
5.5
BOD
900
1540
980
980
820
160
850
890
1540
1530
1650
1610
1400
1500
1540
1430
1040
1270
1840
1750
1190
1420
1650
1720
1560
1250
960
880
1300
1330
Susp.
Sol.
_
-
-
1100
900
600
-
'870
_
600
680
1060
720
1880
990
910
330
740
510
400
1330
700
380
840
820
930
540
390
600
640
PERFORMANCE
Organ
Load
630
880
700
830
690
300
460
640
890
920
1090
990
890
970
950
1120
1150
1000
1260
1230
1190
1160
1890
2000
1750
1480
1250
1090
1400
1550
Organ
Rem.
300
310
380
650
390
240
150
350
120
160
250
200
200
220
190
410
640
360
340
370
600
450
460
510
390
400
430
330
270
400
Per-
cent
47.0
35.0
48.0
79.0
56.0
80.0
32.0
54.0
13.8
17.2
23.5
19.2
22.0
22.3
19.7
36.4
55.5
36.3
27.2
29.7
50.4
39.3
24.4
25.5
22.5
26.8
34.0
30.0
19.5
26. 1
K
Fact
.02
.02
.03
.06
.03
.06
.01
.03
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.02
.04
.02
.01
.02
.03
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.01
.02
                                  60

-------
The units used in Table I are:

a.  hydraulic rate:  gallons per minute waste per square foot of cross-
                    sectional area

b.  B. O.D. milligrams per liter

c.  organic loading: pounds  of B.O.D. per 1000 cubic feet of packing medium
                    per day

d.  suspended solids:  milligrams per liter

e.  organic removal:  pounds of B.O.D.  removed per 1000 cubic feet of
                      packing medium per day

f.  K  factor: is a treatability factor which is defined by the equation:

                   Le = e  - KD/Q1/2

      Where       Lo = PPrn  B. O. D. influent

                   L'e = PPm  B. O. D. remaining

                   K   = rate coefficient

                   D   = depth of filter medium in feet

                   Q   = fresh waste in gallons per minute per square of
                        surface area
                                     61

-------
          APPENDIX B

pH CONTROL OF RECIRCULATED
        FLUME WATER
                63

-------
                 TABLE I
RESULTS FOR ACIDIFIED.PUMPING SYSTEM
Date
1967 Time
8-14 6 am
7orn
CLli.1
8am
CLlll
9am
CLi.1 1
1 0 am
X v/ CL111
1 1 am
X X dill
Noon
1 pm
2 pm
3 pm
4 pm
6 pm
8 pm
9 pm
10 pm
1 1 pm
MD
1 am
3 am
5 am
6 am
8-15 7 am
9 am
11 am
Noon
2 pm
4 pm
5 pm
Temp.
°F
72
72
1 u
74
1 T
72
1 M
74
i ~
75
1 -J
75
83
76
75
76
75
73
71
74
73
72
73
71
73
73
69
72
74
73
74
72
71
PH
7 1
1 • *
3 ft
•J • O
3 8
•J • O
3 7
—' » 1
4 1
~ * A
3 7
•j • i
3.7
3.1
3.4
3.4
4. 1
4. 1
3.3
3.0
4.4
3.8
3.8
3.8
4.0
3.9
4.0
3.4
4.2
3.8
5.5
3.8
3.6
3.2
mg/1
CaCO3
30
•j /
KK7
•J -J I
CC1
•J O 1
AOK
U O J
^4.7
_/*± j
A4Q
O*± 7
649
3650
1283
880
	
429
241
1750
337
715
811
809
483
540
506
1298
299
843
68
752
889
976
Relative Bact
Count






110
120
60
470
50
820
890
	
	
370
210
	
40
300
50
50
1680
90
2500
90
	
80
                      64

-------
                            TABLE I (CONT. )
Date
1967
8-15
8-16
8-17
RESULTS
Time
7 pm
9 pm
10 pm
1 1 pm
MD
1 am
3 am
5 am
6 am
8 am
9 am
1 1 am
Noon
1 pm
2 pm
4 pm
6 pm
8 pm
10 pm
MD
1 am
3 am
5 am
o am
7 am
9 am
1 1 am
1 pm
3 pm
FOR
Temp
°F
71
71
71
71
73
71
68
72
68
70
70
68
7*2
I J
72
73
75
75
73
73
75
74
71
73
(.0
O O
72
80
77
79
77
ACIDIFIED
•
PH
4.2
4.3
4. 0
4.3
4.2
3.9
4.2
3.9
3.9
4. 5
3/7
4. 1
4 1
t, 1
4.2
4. 1
4.3
4.6
4.2
4. 0
4.6
4.6
3. 8
3.9
4C
• O
3.9
4.4
3. 5
4. 0
4.6
PUMPING
mg/1
CaCO3
210
199
326
210
282
382
177
406
324
130
473
246
o -2 rj
L, ~J\J
310
380
245
126
263
326
192
193
602
564
i =;&
1 _? O
462
487
1348
838
244
SYSTEM
Relative Bact.
Count
90
1170
2810
2000
5830
420
90
600
100
240
10
10
390
590
60
109
750
210
680
520
300
160
3000
860
500
400
260
                                   65

-------
            TABLE I (CONT. )
RESULTS FOR ACIDIFIED PUMPING SYSTEM
Date
1967
8-17







8-18











81 f\
-19







Time
5 pm
8 pm
9 pm
1 1 pm
MD
1 am
3 am
5 am
6 am
8 am
10 am
Noon
2 pm
4 pm
5 pm
7 pm
9 pm
1 1 pm
1 am
3 am
5 am
6_ 	 	
am
7 am
9 am
1 1 am
1 pm
2 pm
4 pm
6 pm
8 pm
Temp.
°F
81
68
68
75
75
75
70
67
68
73
73
73
82
78
75
73
70
75
75
68
67
£.•7
D /
68
75
72
75
75
78
76
• 75
PH
4. 0
4.2
4.2
4.5
4. 1
3.7
4. 1
4. 0
4.3
4.2
4.0
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.4
3.7
4. 10
3.8
4.2
3.78
6.2
4C
. 3
3.8
4.3
4.2
3.8
5.5
4. 0
4.0
3.9
mg/1
CaCO3
708
129
160
258
399
737
234
240
178
303
597
518
1227
1022
290
450
215
590
332
273
73
354
276
341
677
96
552
410
422
Relative Bact
Count
240
150
65
800
700
120
20
980
80
295
90
161
73
75
900
3V3
80
200
800
100
690
10
430
400
120
350
30
100
270
                     66

-------
            TABLE I (CONT.)
RESULTS FOR ACIDIFIED PUMPING SYSTEM
Date
1967
8-19




9-8








9-9









9-11


Time
10 pm
MD
2 am
4 am
5 am
6 am
8 am
10 am
Noon
2 pm
4 pm
6 pm
8 pm
10 pm
6 am
8 am
10 am
Noon
2 pm
4 pm
6 pm
7 pm
9 pm
10 pm
6 am
7 am
8 am
Temp.
°F
76
77
77
77
77
68
69
71
70
71
72
70
71
67
67
72
75
72
75
74
73
72
74
71
68
70
71
PH
3.9
3.8
4. 1
3.8
4.2
6.6
4. 1
4.2
4. 0
3.3
3.7
4.2
4. 1
3. 8
4.4
4. 1
3.9
3.8
3.5
3.9
4. 0
3.5
4. 1
4.4
3.9
4.0
3. 8
mg/1
CaCO3
562
910
467
921
622
25
390
306
352
820
650
340
330
520
180
412
604
506
835
506
400
820
500
285
448
447
552
Relative Bact
Count
880
840
800
300
230
<1
300
400
24
59
14
9
30
45
<1
63
72
37
84
61
97
172
806
520
41
67
13
                  67

-------
            TABLE I (CONT.)
RESULTS FOR ACIDIFIED PUMPING SYSTEM
Date
1967
9-11






9-15









9-16







9-20
Time
10 am
Noon
2 pm
4 pm
6 pm
8 pm
10 pm
6 am
8 am
9 am
10 am
1 1' am
Noon
1 pm
2 pm
3 pm
5 pm
6 am
8 am
10 am
Noon
2 pm
4 pm
6 pm
7 pm
6 am
Temp.
°F
76
71
75
72
73
74
72
69
69
75
74
78
77
79
77
78
77
68
74
77
73
77
77
77
75
67
PH
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.2
4. 1
4. 1
4.2
6.5
4.2
3.7
3.8
3.5
3.4
3. 5
3.5
3. 5
3.9
3.9
3.6
3. 8
3. 5
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.8
7.4
mg/1
CaCO3
1135
646
593
313
352
351
372
11
272
965
841
1800
1900
1500
1200
1300
696
340
976
878
853
722
778
742
652
19
Relative Bact
Count
23
2
17
10
112
112
161
<1
76
510
440
300
650
970
440
710
160
<1
100
530
80
280
600
186
220
<1
                   68

-------
            TABLE I (CONT. )
RESULTS FOR ACIDIFIED PUMPING SYSTEM
Date
1967
9-20






9-22






9-23








Time
8 am
10 am
1 1 am
1 pm
3 pm
5 pm
Trtrvt
pm
9 pm
10 am
Noon
2 pm
4 pm
6 pm
8 pm
9 pm
6 am
7 am
8 am
9 am
10 am
1 1 am
Noon
1 pm
2 pm
3 pm
4 pm
5 pm
Temp.
°F
70
73
75
77
73
75
7 £
i D
78
76
72
77
76
75
74
76
68
70
74
76
74
73
74
76
76
75
75
75
PH
4.7
4.0
4. 0
4. 1
4. 1
3.9
•3 Q
O • O
3.9
4. 1
4. 1
4.4
4. 1
3.9
4. 1
4.2
7.4
4. 1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.5
4.4
4.7
4.6
4.3
4.2
4. 1
mg/1
CaCO3
161
462
486
441
341
525
cno
_/ vO
694
514
318
400
491
574
382
467
37
312
441
545
422
233
180
198
202
322
370
454
Relative Bact
Count
122
43
184
77
50
50
159
660
110
140
320
690
139
249
<1
205
186
160
112
287
113
107
79
166
44
41
                 69

-------
                   TABLE II
RESULTS FOR NON ACIDIFIED PUMPING SYSTEM
Date
1967 Time
8-14 6
7
8
9
10
11
am
am
am
am
am
am
Noon
1
2
3
4
6
8
9
10
11
pm
pm
pm
pm
pm
pm
pm
pm
pm
MD
1
3
5
6
8-15 7
9
11
am
am
am
am
am
am
am
Noon
Temp.
°F
70
70
71
70
73
72
70
72
73
73
72
73
69
69
71
71
70
71
68
69
71
66
72
70
70
PH
7.2
7.0
7.0
7. 0
6.9
6.8
6.9
7. 0
6.8
7. 1
7. 1
6.5
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.0
7. 1
7. 0
7. 1
7. 1
7.2
7. 1
7.0
7. 1
7.0
mg/L
CaCO3
36
33
40
35
62
60
43
37
61
43
43
131
37
57
60
74
70
68
60
58
55
52
65
51
54
Relative Bac
Count



	
	
	
	
680
1000
223
359
252
400
150
460
340
250
620
170
380
420
785
300
180
450
                        70

-------
               TABLE II (CONT. )
RESULTS FOR NON ACIDIFIED PUMPING SYSTEM
Date
1967
8-15










8-16













Time
2 pm
4 pm
5 pm
7 pm
9 pm
10 pm
1 1 pm
MD
1 am
3am
5 am
6 am
8 am
9 am
1 1 am
•i J. CllXl
Noon
1 pm
2 pm
4 pm
6 pm
8 pm
10 pm
MD
1 am
3 pm
5 pm
Temp.
°F
72
70
71
69
72
73
73
71
70
69
69
68
69
70
68
\J 
-------
                TABLE II (CONT.)
RESULTS FOR NON ACIDIFIED PUMPING SYSTEM
Date
1967 Time
817 A OTV^
~ 1 1 o a.m
7 am
9 am
1 1 am
1 pm
3 pm
5 pm
8_-~ _
pm
9 pm
11 pm
•» f y\
MJJ
1 am
3 am
5 am
8-18 6 am
8 am
10 am
Noon
2 pm
4 pm
5 pm
7 pm
9 pm
1 1 pm
1 am
3 am
Temp.
°Y
L.Q
O O
69
70
71
72
71
73
£."7
O <
67
71
A a
07
71
72
67
68
69
70
70
68
71
71
70
68
70
72
68
PH
7 1
i • 1
7.0
7.0
6.6
7. 0
7.2
6.8
7C
. 3
7.6
7.4
•7 ^
( . J
7. 0
7.4
7.5
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.5
6.9
7.3
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.7
rng/L.
CaCO3
4.4
Tt^
41
51
86
45
33
44
1 k
1 O
21
27
-21
J i.
56
29
25
26
31
34
33
34
39
30
33
23
29
34
21
Relative Bact
Count

4500
3900
350
220
210
280
160
340
260
700
160
8
177
171
400
300
700
700
200
500
140
240
1010
                         72

-------
               TABLE II (CONT. )
RESULTS FOR NON ACIDIFIED PUMPING SYSTEM
Date
1967
81 Q
- i 7











9-8








9-9


Time

D cLTn
7 am
9 am
11 am
1 pm
2 pm
4 pm
6 pm
8 pm
10 pm
MD
dt ctm
4 am
5 am
6 am
8 am
10 am
Noon
2 pm
4 pm
6 pm
8 pm
10 pm
6 am
8 am
10 am
Temp.
°F
AT
O (
67
69
70
72
70
76
73
73
73
73
7^
i j
73
73
68
68
69
69
69
69
68
69
67
67
70
72
PH
•7 1
1.1
7.3
7.0
6.9
6.8
7.5
6.8
6. 8
7.0
6.8
6.9
7 7
i • £
7.2
6.9
7.4
7.2
7.2
7.4
7. 5
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.6
7.2
7.3
mg/L,
CaCO3

33
46
52
72
48
59
60
45
69
53
•?&
J \J
34
49
32
35
31
28
16
27
31
27
31
21
32
31
Relative Bac
Count

20
270
500
275
550
230
400
1200
570
500
380
530
<1
900
1230
600
77
99
87
76
253
<1
138
226
                     73

-------
               TABLE II (CONT.)
RESULTS FOR NON ACIDIFIED PUMPING SYSTEM
Date
1967 Time
9-9 Noon
2 pm
4 pm
6 pm
7 pm
9 pm
10 pm
9-11 6 am
7 am
8 am
10 am
Noon
2 pm.
4 pm
6 pm
8 pm
10 pm
9-15 5 am
8 am
9 am
10 am
1 1 am
Noon
1 pm
2 pm
3 pm
Temp.
°F
70
74
70
71
69
71
70
67
69
69
72
69
71
71
70
70
69
68
69
70
69
71
69
71
71
72
PH
7.4
7. 5
7.5
7.4
7.6
7. 1
7.4
7.7
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.0
7.2
7.7
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.2
7, 1
mg/L,
CaCO3
23
34
30
28
32
34
26
16
27
27
33
20
23
25
25
29
30
17
23
35
24
32
23
27
30
31
Relative Bact
Count
106
137
111
60
1180
1340
1200
82
80
22
59
9
53
18
54
44
22
<1
120
220
80
210
510
161
270
310
                         74

-------
               TABLE II (CONT. )
RESULTS FOR NON ACIDIFIED PUMPING SYSTEM
Date
1967
9-15
9-16







9-20







9-22






Time
5 pm
6 am
8 am
10 am
Noon
2 pm
4 pm
6 pm
7 pm
6 am
8 am
1 O a w»
1 \J cLXll
11 am
1 pm
3 pm
5 pm
7 pm
9 pm
10 am
Noon
2 pm
4 pm
6 pm
8 pm
9 pm
Temp.
°F
72
67
69
70
69
71
70
71
71
67
68
7fi
I U
72
73
71
73
71
74
72
69
72
71
72
70.
72
pH
7.2
7. 5
7. 0
7.2
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.3
7. 1
7.4
7.5
7 4
i * ^
7.2
7. 1
7.5
7. 1
7. 5
7. 1
7. 1
7.6
7.2
7.3
6.9
7.3
7. 1
mg/L
CaCO3
34
18
34
29
21
34
31
29
37
20
18
1 Q
1 7
34
36
18
36
22
40
40
16
40
31
49
26
42
Relative Bact.
Count
910
<1
40
80
30
70
200
1800
1500
<1
284
970
115
210
115
	
153
450
	
214
168
241
337
3050
                       75

-------
Date
1967


9-23
                             TABLE II (COTSTT. )
             RESULTS FOR NON ACIDIFIED PUMPING SYSTEM
Time
6 am
7 B.m
8 am
9 am
10 am
1 1 am
Noon
1 pm
2 pm
3 pm
4 pm
5 pm
Temp.
°F
68
68
68
72
70
72
72
72
74
73
73
72
PH
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.0
7.2
7. 1
7.0
7. 1
7.0
7. 1
7.2
7.2
mg/L
CaGO3
40
39
39
50
34
37
50
43
45
62
37
31
Relative Bact,
Count
119
85
159
210
1210
1130
220
96
600
320
70
130
                                    76

-------
         APPENDIX C

AIR FLOTATION FOR REMOVAL
    OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS
               77

-------
                TABLE I
AIR FLOTATION - PEACH RINSE
1967
Date
8-28

8-Z9




8-30



Flow - GPM Loading
Time In Recycle GPM/ft^/lb/
9-12am 7. 5 7. 5 0.97
8-llpm " " "
6-9 am " " "
10-1 pm " " "
3-6 pm " " "
7-10pm "
11-2 am " "
3-6 pm " " "
7-10am " " "
1-4 pm " " "
6-9 pm " " "
AVERAGE 7.5 7.5 0.97
8-31




7-10am 15 15 1.95
11-2 pm " "
3-6 pm " " "
7-10pm " "
11-2 am " " "
AVERAGE 15 15 1.95
9-1



9-2



7-10am 20 20 2.60
11-2 pm " " "
3-6pm " "
8-llpm " " "
7-10am " " "
11 -2pm " " "
3-6 pm "
7-10pm " " "
AVERAGE 20 20 2.60
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
2.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
hr/ft
59
33
49
88
45
38
90
62
52
31
67
56
65
56
60
10
85
73
96
47
60
23
82
55
50
25
17
Suspended Solids
2 In Out
1560
880
1310
2340
1190
1020
2390
1660
1390
820
1340
1445
870
740
2130
2800
1130
1534
1040
1470
1650
1230
820
550
1500
1250
1310
20
18
44
188
62
134
84
108
84
124
148
92
40
192
152
320
98
176
320
400
830
305
288
110
205
110
343
% Rem.
98.
98.
96.
92.
94.
86.
96.
93.
94.
84.
89.
93.
95.
74.
92.
88.
87.
87.
69.
73.
48.
75.
64.
80.
86.
90.
74.
6
0
6
6
7
8
5
5
0
9
0
2
4
0
9
6
0
7
3
0
1
2
9
0
3
0
0
Float
GPM
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
49
49
54
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
66
57
57
57
57
57
57
75
96
96
44
62
53
53
44
28
% Solids
1.
1.
1.
0.
2.
2.
1.
2.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
1.
44
82
68
97
86
33
34
15
01
81
09
05
20
40
84
34
75
71
01
53
61
14
20
45
17
94
51
                    78

-------
           TABLE I (CONT. )
AIR FLOTATION - PEACH RINSE WATER
1967
Date
9-5


Flow - GPM Lo
Time In Recycle GPM/ft
8-llam 20 10 1.95
12-3 pm " " "
4-7 pm " " "
AVERAGE 20 10 1.95
9-5
9-6


9-7



8-llpm 30 15 2.92
11 -2pm " "
3-6pm " "
12-3am " " "
6-9am " "
10-lpm " " "
2-5pm " " "
6-9pm " "
AVERAGE 30 15 2.92
9-27
9-28
9-29
9-30
10-8pm 30 10 2.60
12-8pm " "
10-5pm " "
11 -3pm "
AVERAGE 30 10 2.60
jading
:2lb/hr/ft
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
93
80
89
88
13
56
74
86
85
04
82
99
25
44
44
26
24
34
Suspended
2 In
930
800
890
873
1420
890
2490
1240
1230
690
2540
1320
1480
290
280
180
170
228
Out
84
468
148
233
540
275
1680
440
50
70
1220
490
590
35
90
84
85
74
Solids
% Rem.
91.
41.
83.
72.
62.
69.
32.
64.
95.
89.
52.
62.
66.
87.
67.
53.
50.
64.
0
6
4
0
0
0
5
5
9
9
0
8
1
9
8
3
0
8
Float
GPM
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
12
12
12
12
04
21
31
31
31
31
31
31
29
36
51
26
40
38
%
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
0.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
2.
2.
Solids
40
60
90
00
87
66
84
32
17
98
20
45
57
11
80
43
00
01
                  79

-------
                TABLE II
AIR FLOTATION  - TOMATO WASTE WATER
1967
Date
10-13

10-14

Flow - GPM Loading
Suspended
Time In Recycle GPM/ft^lb/day/ft2 In
10-2pm 7.5 7.5 0.97
3-7pm " " "
8-12pm " " "
l-4pm " " "
AVERAGE 7.5 7.5 0.97
10-19

10-20

10-21

12-3pm 15 15 1.95
4-7pm " " "
12-4pm " " "
5-8pm " " "
8-12am " " "
l-5pm " " "
AVERAGE 15 15 1.95
10-26

10-27

10-28

9-12am 30 15 2.92
l-4pm " " "
10-1 pm " " "
2-6 pm " " "
7-llam " " "
12-3 pm " " "
AVERAGE 30 15 2.92
7.
15.
10.
4.
9.
9.
15.
55.
14.
10.
12.
19.
9.
12.
11.
40.
8.
12.
15.
8
5
9
5
7
0
3
5
2
7
3
5
75
4
5
5
64
8
9
870
1725
1210
495
1075
500
850
3060
790
575
685
1077
325
415
320
1125
240
355
463
Out
205
75
225
210
179
195
100
185
335
310
315
240
300
220
115
120
205
130
182
Solids
% Rem.
76.
95.
81.
59.
78.
61.
88.
92.
57.
46.
54.
66.
7.
47.
64.
93.
14.
63.
48.
5
5
4
6
3
0
1-
0
5
1
0
5
7
0
1
5
6
5
4
Float
GPH % Solids
8.
8.
4.
4.
6.
13.
13.
8.
8.
12.
12.
11.
3.
3.
10.
10.
11.
11.
8.
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
0
0
0
0
1
7
7
9
9
7
7
8
9.
10.
6.
6.
8.
2.
4.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
65
40
19
85
27
56
14
21
43
75
59
95
83
59
46
79
87
91
08
                      80

-------
                    APPENDIX D

      CENTER DISCHARGE VIBRATING SCREENS
                        FOR
SEPARATION OF SOLIDS FROM LIQUID WASTE WATERS
                         81

-------
                                                     TABLE I

                              SCREENING OF FRUIT AND TOMATO WASTE WATERS
Date
1968
7/17
7/17
7/18
7/18
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/20
7/20
7/20
7/22
7/22
Ave.
7/22
7/23
7/23
Ave.
7/24
7/24
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/26
7/26
7/26
7/27
7/27
7/27
Ave.
Time
7-10 am
11-2 pm
7-10 am
11-2 pm
7-10 am
11-2 pm
3-5 pm
7-10 am
11-2 pm
3-6 pm
7-10 am
11-2 pm

7-10 am
11-2 pm
3-6 pm

10-1 pm
2-5 pm
7-10 am
12-2 pm
3-6 pm
7-10 am
11-2 pm
3-6 pm
7-10 am
11-2 pm
3-6 pm

Mesh
Top Bot.
64 64
64 64
64 64
64 64
64 64
64 64
64 64
64 64
64. 64
64 64
64 64
64 64

78 64
78 64
78 64

40 64
40 64
40 64
40 64
40 64
40 64
40 64
40 64
40 64
40 64
40 64

Percent
Screened
Top Bot.
99 1
ii i
ii i
ii ii
ii ii
98 2
ii ii
ii M
ii n
ii ti
97 3
96 4


70 30
70 30

98 2
90 10
95 5
40 60
98 2
98 2
96 4

97 3
97 3
98 2

Settleable Solids
Two Deck
Tyler Top Bot.
90 111 95
68 74 77
48 49 103
70 53 65
68 69 88
47 55 99
86 60 201
67 68 103
53 49 154
276 90 709
59 70 109
68 75 93
83 69 167
55 52 102
69 70 140
101 89 112
75 70 118
81 57 84
77 75 118
68 62 112
55 56 70
60 67 136
71 72 111
64 62 128
68 62 79
60 66 88
60 61 86
79 114 132
68 69 104
Table Top
Tyler Eff.
* 74
71 58
49 59
65 82
50
50 43
47 58
53 62
51 50
60 68
55 63
63 72
56 63
41 60
54 52
88 79
61 64
63 59
67 84
64 69
45 89
59 56
70
69
65
57
71
64
59 68
Suspended Solids
Two Deck
Tyler Top Bot.
* * 420
310 * 180
220 200 630
170 240 240
210 170 260
250 140 430
300 280 1200
240 110 490
530 420 770
450 300 870
330 80 630
350 210 400
305 215 543
300 150 550
190 280 490
300 300 380
263 243 473
330 430 520
350 310 850
490 340 895
380 42-0 520
380 280 690
480 440 720
360 370 450
360 360 590
380 210 520
450 400 490
570 670 580
412 385 620
Table Top
Tyler Eff.
370 250
160 250
210 200
270 170
90 240
210 240
270 560
250 390
500 630
540 270
270 380
150 270
274 321
310 340
230 330
270 250
541 307
370 370
310 370
400 540
260 440
380 270
490
450
270
230
380
520
344 394
% Moist
Two Table
Deck Top
89.0 81.0
89.1 80.3
80.0 80.0
79.8 76.4
79.6 77.9
78.8 79.0
77.5 77.6
77.8 77.0
77.1 77.4
76.8 79.3
78.4 77.0
78.9 75.8

79.6 76.8
80.1 77.6
78.3 77.7

77.8 78.5
80.8 78.5
78.4 77.8
77. 6 78. 8
91.0 91.1
90.0 78.7
90.6 78.3
91.0 90.7
93.0 91.0
90.7 91.1
93.3 91.3

oo
to

-------
                                                TABLE I (CONT.)
                              SCREENING OF FRUIT AND TOMATO WASTE WATERS
Date
1968
7/30
7/31
7/31
7/31
8/1
8/1
8/1
8/2
8/2
Ave.
8/3
8/3
8/5
B/5
8/6
8/6
8/6
Ave.
8/7
8/8
Ave.
8/10
8/10
8/10
8/12
8/12
8/12
8/13
8/13
Ave.
8/14
Time
4:30-5:30p
7-10 am
10-2 pm
3-6 pm
7-10 am
11-2 pm
3-6 pm
7-10 am
11-2 pm

7-10 am
11-2 pm
2-5 pm
6-9 pm
7-10 am
11-2 pm
2-6 pm

5-8 pm
7-10 am

7-10 am
11-2 pm
3-6 pm
11-2 pm
3-6 pm
7-10 am
7-10 am
11-2 pm

2-5 pm
Mesh
Top Bot.
20 64
20 64
20 64
20 64
20 64
20 64
20 64
20 64
20 64

20 78
20 78
20 78
20 78
20 78
20 78
20 78

40 78
40 78

48 78
48 78
48 78
48 78
48 78
48 78
48 78
48 78

64 78
Percent
Screened
Top Bot.
99.9 0.1
99.9 0.1
99.9 0.1
99.8 0.2
99.8 0.2
99.8 0.2
99.8 0.2
99.8 0.2
99.8 0.2

99.98 0.02
99.98 0.02


99.8 0.2
99.8 0.2
99.8 0.2

99.5 0.5
99.5 0.5

99.5 0.5
99.5 0.5
99.5 0.5
99.5 0.5
99.5 0.5
99.5 0.5
99.5 0.5
99. 5 0. 5

99.5 0.5
Settleable Solids
Two Deck
Tyler Top Bot.
152 172 440
88 110 1000
57 68 1000
72 81 1000
106 103 704
66 80 881
65 71 410
75 88 922
95 102 729
86 97 787
89 106 430
76 88 260
94 96 381
72 76 500
71 102 545
59 73 376
71 82 287
76 89 397
92 94 866
60 88 670
76 91 768
60 71 1000
68 71 516
278 667
61 68
62 69 990
113 114 913
71 142 960
76 95 975
99 162 892
68 66 513
Table Top
Tyler Eff.
146
89
64
76
78
66 86
65 78
75 78
95 98
86 88
89 83
76 81
94 79
72 88
71 89
59 7.0
71 79
76 80
92 45
60 73
76 59
60 77
68 71
278 209
61 135
62 80
113 125
71 76
76 72
99 106
68 70
Suspended Solids
Two. Deck
Tyler Top Bot.
440 450 3400
520 590 3160
330 440 3400
210 320 3440
370 390 2320
430 500 2850
530 580 3720
440 580 3040
550 630 3520
424 497 3205
220 510 1560
540 580 2280
360 560 1760
530 520 2440
400 490 1760
490 630 840
540 660 2320
440 564 1851
450 480 2000
500 540 2160
475 510 2080
390 460 2560
430 290 1120
730 940 5280
440 420 4560
480 380 4400
730 490 5000
300 420 4200
470 590 3360
496 499 3810
410 440 2040
Table Top
Tyler Eff.
490
310
440
360
250
430 230
530 590
440 510
550 660
424 426
220 550
540 540
360 520
530 550
400 470
490 410
540 550
440 512
450 540
500 530
475 535
390 790
430 390
730 810
440 470
480 300
730 530
300 330
470 410
497 504
410 490
% Moist
Two Table
Deck Top
91.4 92.0
90.0 92.0
89.2 91.6
89.6 91.3
90.3 92.5
90.5 91.5
91.0 91.5
91.0 91.3
91.3 92.0

91.0 93.6
90.8 92.0
89.7 92.8
91.4 92.2
90.5 92.0
90.5 93.0
90.4 92.6

90.7 92.2
90.5 91.4

90. 3 92. 1
91.1 90.7
91.9 91.9
91.6 91.7
90.5 90.7
89.2 90.6
90.7 90.7
90.5 91.2
90.7 91.2
92.7 91.9
00
CO

-------
                 TABLE I (CONT.)
SCREENING OF FRUIT AND TOMATO WASTE WATERS
Date
1968
8/17
8/23
8/23
8/24
8/24
8/24
8/26
8/26
8/26
Ave.
8/28
8/28
8/30
8/30
Ave.
9/3
9/3
9/4
9/4
9/5
9/5
9/6
Ave.
9/7
9/7
9/9
9/9
9/10
9/10
9/12
9/13
9/13
Time
1 -4 pm
10-1 pm
2-5 pm
10:30-1. -30|
2:30-5:30p
6:30-9:30p
6-10 pm
11-2 pm
2-5 pm

7-10 am
11-2 pm
7-10 am
11-2 pm

8-11 am
12-3:30p
6-9 am
10-1 pm
8-11 am
12-3 pm
8-11 am

7-10 am
11-2 pm
8-11 am
12-3 pm
8-11 pm
12-3 pm
2-4 pm
6-9 pm
10-1 pm
Mesh
Top Bot.
64 94
64 94
64 94
) 64 94
64 94
64 94
64 94
64 94
64 94

78 94
78 94
78 94
78 94

80 100
80 100
80 100
80 100
80 100
80 100
80 100

100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
Percent
Screened
Top Bot.
99.0 1.0
99.0 1.0
99.5 0.5
98.0 2.0
98.0 2.0
98.0 2.0
98.0 2.0
98.0 2.0
98.0 2.0

97 3
75-98 2-25
75 25
75 25

60-90 10-40
50-99 1-50
90 10
90 10
90 10
90 10
70-90 10-30

60 40
60 40
70 30
60 40
60 40
90 10
70 30
95 5
95 5
Settleable Solids
Two Deck
Tyler Top Bot.
70 60 175
120 108 310
97 92 820
49 76 163
342 90 618
74 85 837
81 98 930
78 74 273
75 79 1000
110 85 570
81 58 170
76 78 146
95 70 105
73 67 156
81 68 144
65 66 100
80 80 105
116 109 181
71 78 319
73 68 179
53 55 81
86 86 193
78 77 165
60 55 95
59 66 108
118 128 148
48 43 68
88 91 99
60 52 130
55 41 108
73 65 182
92 88 184
Table
Top
83
145
128
76
445
79
118
51
103
136
71
97
90
81
85
79
70
95
76
79
88
77
81
60
78
152
63
73
73
59
71
60
Suspended Solids
Two Deck
Tyler Top Bot.
500 500 960
340 410 1040
400 290 1160
460 840 1160
500 430 1520
560 670 1040
310 390 2280
400 340 1640
560 490 2000
448 410 1422
410 350 720
630 570 1120
350 350 280
510 510 1200
475 445 830
290 250 360
340 290 560
440 310 360
460 410 880
370 320 800
480 360 640
380 380 880
394 331 640
360 300 600 '
420 530 440
580 370 520
300 230 360
310 190 340
390 310 540
220 190 340
260 270 320
490 430 820
Table
Top
510
560
310
470
640
690
410
500
500
510
520
700
320
650
547
340
250
380
480
340
470
380
377
310
470
480
320
210
340
370
290
370
% Moisture
Two Table
Deck Top
91.7 89.2
90.6 91.2
92.0 90.6
92.5 91.4
92.1 91.2
89.4 89.3
90.7 90.8
91.4 89.3
91.2 91.4
91.3 90.5
90.4 90.6
93.4 92.3
93.8 92.0
92.5 90.3
92.5 91.3
92.6 90.6
92.5 90.5
92.4 92.1
93.4 92.7
91.9 92.1
93.3 92.1
93.6 92.2
92.8 91.8
93.3 91.6
94. 7 90. 8
95. 1 93. 1
95.1 90.4
95.5 91.4
93.0 91.8
91.7 90.6
93.1 91.6
93.9 93.6

-------
                 TABLE I (CONT.)
SCREENING OF FRUIT AND TOMATO WASTE WATERS
Date
1968
9/14
9/14
9/16
9/16
9/17
9/17
9/18
9/18
9/19
9/19
9/20
Ave.
9/23
9/24
9/26
Ave.
9/28
9/28
9/28
9/30
10/2
10-3
Ave.
10/5
10/5
10/5
10/7
10/8
10/9
10/10
Ave.
Time
7-10 am
11-2 pm
9/12 am
1 -4 pm
8-11 am
12-3 pm
8-11 am
1 -4 pm
8-11 am
1 -3 pm
6-9 am

l:30-4:30p
l:30-4:30p
l:30-4:30p

8-11 am
12-3 pm
4-7 pm
l:30-4:30p
3-6 pm
2:30-3:30p

8-11 am
4:30-7:30a
2-5 pm
3-6 pm
12-3 pm
2-5 pm
2-5 pm

Mesh
Top Bot.
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100

100 78
100 78
100 78

80 78
80 78
80 78
80 78
80 78
80 78

64 78
64 78
64 78
64 78
64 78
64 78
64 78

Percent
Screened
Top Bot.
95 5
95 5
80 20
90 10
90 10
90 10
95 5
95 5
95 5
95 5
95 5

40 60
50 50
60 40

90 10
90 10
90 10
85 15
50-60 40-50
75 25

92-95 5-8
92-95 5-8
80-85 10-15
95-99 1-5
90-95 5-10
92-99 1-8
95 5

Settleable Solids
Two Deck
Tyler Top Bot.
63 57 135
54 45 100
65 51 130
83 56 111
47 43 173
28 29 72
53 45 100
86 52 93
109 80 212
63 50 89
75 52 190
69 59 126
47 37 78
64 45 76
50 37 83
54 40 79
107 100 201
79 59 145
134 100 187
72 62 159
56 50 71
55 38 90
84 68 142
43 42 163
34 33 99
64 69 159
72 72 200
58 48 138
59 51 114
53 48 112
55 52 141
Table
Top
59
56
71
65
57
44
47
65
79
53
57
67
58
51
33
47
98
63
95
58
59
39
69
40
33
52
62
54
54
55
50
Suspended Solids
Two Deck
Tyler Top Bot.
400 380 440
510 450 800
290 240 460
390 260 400
380 490 500
680 870 740
620 560 720
660 520 840
500 430 780
520 480 420
570 370 620
443 394 550
430 370 420
460 450 540
980 960 1040
623 593 667
790 660 740
740 600 940
680 570 640
330 340 520
530 490 560
410 480 400
585 512 647
370 320 660
510 450 560
380 440 480
340 320 700
220 280 380
410 410 580
500 410 660
390 377 569
Table
Top
330
460
300
370
440
810
610
610
650
650
340
437
370
520
950
613
750
710
610
390
500
400
560
370
530
480
270
280
420
470
403
% VIoisture
Two Table
Deck Top
92.4 91.0
92.6 92.2
93.3 91.1
92.1 91.0
92.6 91.7
92.3 91.5
92.0 91.4
92.8 89.8
93.9 91.9
92.0 89.8
92.0 90.6
93.2 91.3
93.0 92.0
93.6 92.4
93.3 92.6
93.3 92.3
92.0 92.4
92.5 90.0
93.7 91.6
92.8 90.9
93.9 92.3
92.4 92.0
92.9 91.5
91.8 92.3
91.5 89.6
92.2 92.2
91.2 91.0
91.3 91.4
91.7 92.1
92. 5
91.7 91.4

-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC:

       National Cannera Aasociation,  Reduction and Treatment of
Cannery Waatea, Final Report FWPCA Grant No. WPRD 151-01-68.
April.  1970.

ABSTRACT

       Trickling Filter - The effects of hydraulic loading and nutrient addition
on soluble B. O. D. removal from fruit waste water were investigated.  In 196B,
at 1350 gpd/sq  ft without nutrient addition,  190 Ibs of B. O. D. /1000 cu ft/day
were removed;  with nutrient (anhydrous ammonia) addition,  450 Ibs of B. O. D.
were removed.  At 2200 gpd/sq ft,  B.O. D.  removal decreased slightly.

       pH Control • Fruit  pumping water was acidified with citric acid and  con-
trolled at pH 4.0 or below to inhibit bacterial growth and to extend the use of re-
circulated water.  The daily discharge volume  of acidified system was 6720 gallons
containing 118 Ibs of B.O. D. , non-acidified, 26, 520 gallons, 170 Ibs B. O. D.

       Air Flotation System - Removal from peach rinse water was 65 to  93 percent
at 2700 gpd/sq  ft and 1400 gpd/sq ft respectively.  A 70 percent removal was main-
tained  at 2300 gpd/aq ft for  peach and 1400 gpd/sq ft for tomato waste water.

       Screens  - The maximum capacity of the single (20 mesh) deck was 1000 gom.
Compared to 20 mesh rectangular screen,  48 mesh removed  32.2 percent more
solids.  For  the double deck unit  containing a 20 mesh  top and 100 mesh bottom,
the unit handled 1SOO gpm -1.5 times the single deck unit.
ACCESS ION NO.
    KEY WORDS:

Trickling Filters
Disinfection
Separation Techniques
Screens
Canneries
Industrial Wastes
BIBLIOGRAPHIC:

       National  Cannera Aaaociation,  Reduction and Treatment of
Cannery Waatea, Final Report FWPCA Grant No. WPRD 151-01-68,
April.  1970.

ABSTRACT

       Trickling Filter - The effects of hydraulic loading and nutrient addition
on soluble B.O. D. removal from fruit waste water were investigated.  In 1968,
at 1250 gpd/aq ft without nutrient addition,  190 Ibs of B.O. D. /I 000  cu ft/day
were removed;   with nutrient (anhydrous ammonia) addition. 450 Ibs of B.O. D.
were removed.   At 2200 gpd/aq ft, B.O. D. removal decreased slightly.

       pH Control - Fruit  pumping water was acidified with citric acid and con-
trolled at pH  4.0 or below to inhibit bacterial growth and to extend the use of re-
circulated water.  The daily discharge volume of acidified system was 6720  gallons
containing 118 Ibs of B. O. D. ; non-acidified, 26, 520 gallons, 170 Ibs B. O. D.

       Air Flotation System - Removal from peach rinse water was  65 to 93 percent
at 2700 gpd/sq ft and 1400 gpd/aq ft respectively.  A 70 percent removal was main-
tained at 2300 gpd/sq ft for peach and 1400  gpd/sq  ft for tomato waste water.

       Screens  - The maximum  capacity of the  single (20 mesh) deck was  1000  gom.
Compared to  20  mesh rectangular screen, 48 mesh removed 32.2 percent  more
solids.  For the double deck unit  containing a 20 mesh top and 100 mean bottom.
the unit handled  1500 gpm -1.5 times the single deck unit.
ACCESS ION NO.
    KEY WORDS:

Trickling Filters
Disinfection
Separation Techniques
Screens
Canneries
Industrial Wastes
BIBLIOGRAPHIC:

       National  Canners Aaaociation,  Reduction and Treatment of
Cannery Waatea, Final Report FWPCA Grant No. WPRD 151-01-68.
April.  1970.

ABSTRACT

       Trickling Filter - The effects of hydraulic loading and nutrient addition
on soluble B. O, O. removal from fruit waste water were investigated.  In  1968,
at 1250 gpd/sq ft without nutrient addition,  190 Ibs of B.O. D. /1000 cu ft/day
were removed;   with nutrient (anhydrous ammonia) addition. 450 Ibs of B. O. D.
were removed.   At 2200 gpd/sq ft, B.O. D. removal decreased  slightly.

       oH Control - Fruit pumping water was acidified with citric acid and con-
trolled at pH 4.0 or below to  inhibit bacterial growth and to extend the use of re-
circulated water. The daily discharge volume of acidified system was 6720  gallons
containing 118 Ibs of B.O.D.; non-acidified,  26,520 gallons, 170 Ibs B.O.D.

       Mr Flotation System - Removal from peach rinse water  was  65 to 93 percent
at 2700 gpd/sq ft and 1400 gpd/sq ft respectively.  A 70 percent removal was main-
tained at 2300 gpd/aq ft for peach and 1400  gpd/sq  ft for tomato waste water.

       Screens - The maximum  capacity of the single (20 mesh) deck was  1000  gom.
Compared to 20  mesh rectangular screen, 48 mesh removed 32.2 percent  more
solids.  For the  double deck unit  containing a 20  mesh top and 100 mesh bottom.
the unit handled  1500 gpm -1.5 times the single  deck unit.
ACCESS I ON NO.
    KEY WORDS:

Trickling Filters
Disinfection
Separation Techniques
Screens
Canneries
Industrial Wastes
                                                  87

-------
1

5
Accession Number
2

Subject Field &. Group
05D
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Organization
National Canners Association
     1950 Sixth Street
     Berkeley.  California 94710
    Title
     Reduction and Treatment of Cannery Wastes
 1Q Authors)
     Walter A.  Mercer
     Walter W. Rose
                               iz  Project Designation
                                        WPRD 151-01-
                                   21
                                      Note
 22
    Citation
     Berkeley,  California;  National Canners Association,  April,  1970
     no. ofpages-85;  no.  of figures-31; no. of tables-17;  no.  of references-0.
 23
    Descriptors (Starred First)
     *Canneries, Industrial Wastes, ^Disinfection,  *Screens,  #Trickling Filters,
     *Separation Techniques, Water Pollution
 25
    Identifiers (Starred First)
     *pH Control,  *Peach Wastes, Tomato Wastes
 27
Abstract
 Trickling Filter--The effects of hydraulic loading and nutrient addition on soluble
 B.O.D.  removal from fruit waste water were investigated.  In 1968, at 1250 gpd/sq
 ft without nutrient addition, 190 Ibs of B.O.D. /1000 cu ft/day were  removed;  with
 nutrient (anhydrous ammonia) addition,  450 Ibs  of B.O.D. were removed.  At 2200
 gpd/sq ft,  B.O.D. removal decreased slightly.
 pH Control - Fruit pumping water was acidified  with citric acid and  controlled at pH
 4. 0 or below to inhibit bacterial growth and to extend  the use of recirculated water.
 The  daily discharge volume of acidified system,  was 6720 gallons containing 118 Ibs
 of B.O.D.; non-acidified, 26, 520 gallons,  170  Ibs B. O. D.
 Air Flotation System -Removal from peach rinse water was  65 to 93 percent at 2700
 gpd/sq ft and 1400 gpd/sq ft respectively.  A 70 percent removal was maintained at
 2300 gpd/sq ft for peach and 1400 gpd/sq ft for  tomato waste water.
 Screens- The maximum capacity of the  single (20 mesh) deck was 1000 gpm.  Com-
 pared to 20 mesh rectangular screen, 48 mesh  removed 32.2 percent more solids.
 For  the double deck unit containing a 20 mesh top  and 100 mesh bottom, the unit
 handled 1500 gpm -1.5 times the single deck unit.
Abstractor
       Walter W. Rose
                             Institution
                                 National Canners Association
 WR:102
 WRSIC
       (REV. JULY 1969)
                                         SEND TO: WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
                                                U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                                                WASHINGTON. D. C. 20240
                                           89
                                                      *U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1971 O - 412-17.)

-------