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.)
------- |